Orissa Court September 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Berhampur Vs. Bhagir ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: 1997ACJ470; AIR1996Ori107; 81(1996)CLT344
P.C. Naik, J. 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna had awarded a sum of Rs. 75,800/- as compensation to the claimant/Respondent No. 1 with a direction to the insurer (appellant) to satisfy the award. Hence, this appeal by the insurer. 2. The Tribunal has held that the claimant/Respondent No. 1 was knocked down by a jeep bearing Registration No.ORN 3211 of which the Respondent No. 1 is the owner and appellant the insurer, Due to the injuries, the right leg of the claimant was amputed. On a further finding that the accident was due to the rashness and negligence of the jeep driver, the Tribunal held the claimant was entitled to compensation from the owner and the insurer of the jeep. Accordingly the award in question was passed in favour of the claimant. 3. The learned counsel for the insurer assails the award on merits. It is urged that the insurer having denied that Respondent No. 2 was the owner of the vehicle, the Tribunal committed an error in not framing a...
Hemanta Kumar Patnaik Vs. Smt. Basanti Patnaik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR118
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Grant of maintenance to opposite parties on disposal of an application made under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, 'the Code') is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision application.2. Filtering out unnecessary details, case of parties as presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baripada (in short, 'JMFC') is as follows :An application under Section 125 of the Code was fried by opposite parties before the learned JMFC inter alia stating that opp. party No. 1 is legally married wife of the petitioner, and opp. party Nos. 2 and 3 were born through their wed-lock. While opp. party No. 1 was staying at Bhubaneswar during her second pregnancy she was brought to her father's house near Baripada on 29-11-1385 by the petitioner, and though he promised to take her back after delivery, he failed to do so. When the opposite parties went to the house of petitioner at Bhubaneswar, they found that the petitioner was stayi...
Madan Mohan Sahoo and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1169
A. Pasayat, J.1. Two points which have arisen in this case for consideration are of seminal importance. First is whether the High Court can act in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed outside the State to which it relates. In other words, can such power be exercised by any High Court or any Court of Session within the country irrespective of the locale of the commission of offence. There is divergence of opinion on this aspect by several High Courts. Calcutta High Court, Delhi High Court, Karnataka High Court and Bombay High Court have taken the view in the affirmative [See B.R. Sinha v. The State, 1982 Cri LJ 61 (Cal); Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Cri LJ 1174 (Delhi); Dr. L.R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka, 1984 Cri LJ 757 and N. K. Nayar v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 Cri LJ 1887, respectively). The contrary view has been expressed by Patna High Court, Kerala High Court, Punja...
Golakha Chandra Bej Vs. Gobinda Hari Passoria and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-26-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ1168Ori; 1997(II)OLR146
P. Ray, J. 1. This present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant against the judgment and award dated November 20, 1992 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner') in Workmen Compensation Case No. 526 - D/1991. By the impugned judgment and award the Commissioner has assesed the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 70% and allowed compensation on that basis.2. On behalf of the claimant-appellant it is submitted that the evidence on record clearly shows that the claimant's loss of earning capacity is to the extent of 100% and the Commissioner committed error in assessing the same at 70%3. Contesting the appeal learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company has submitted that the claimant's own witness Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mohapatra (P.W.2), having categorically assessed the disability at70%, the claim of permanent loss of earning capacity should not be entertained.4. There is no dispu...
Indian Hygiene (Food Craft Division) and Anr. Vs. Employees' State Ins ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-26-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT152; (1997)IIILLJ109Ori
A. Pasayat J.1. Petitioners call in question legality of determination made by Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (in short, 'the Corporation') under Section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, 'the Act').2. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. P.P. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation stating that the petitioners have an effective statutory remedy available under the Statute, and therefore, this writ application should not be entertained. Mr. A.R. Dash, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the dispute as involved in the case at hand is not covered by any of the provisions under the Act, and no appeal would lie.3. Detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary in view of the limited nature of controversy.The petitioners have been held liable to pay contribution in terms of the Act for variousperiods. Copies of the orders determining the amount have been annexed as Annexures 14and 15 to the writ ...
Prafulla Kumar Panda Vs. Amari Kumari Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)13; 81(1996)CLT49; 1996CriLJ553; I(1996)DMC402
R.K. Patra, J.1. Should a contentions issue as to the meaning and purport of the expression 'a change in the circumstances' appearing in Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') be decided in this revision filed by the husband against his wife The petitioner who is the husband of the opposite party contends that the validity of the impugned order depends upon the meaning of the above expression and adjudication on the point is called for.2. These are the facts of the case opposite party filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code against the petitioner on 23.6.1986 in the Court of the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 53 of 1986. On the prayer made by her, the learned Magistrate, passed an interim order on 24.6.1986 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- as monthly allowance towards her maintenance. After receipt of notice in the case, the petitioner appeared and filed his written sta...
Rajkishore Mohapatra and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ684; 1995(II)OLR578
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The short question that falls for determination in this case is whether the Magistrate after passing the order taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process to the accused persons named in the charge-sheet filed by the police has any provide to issue process to other accused persons not named in the charge-sheet to face trial.2. In this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr PC'), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kurd on 9-5-1983 in G.R. Case No. 344 of 1987, which was confirmed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, by his order dated 7-5-1892 in Criminal Revision No. 99 of 1988. In the order, the learned Magistrate, on a finding that there exists a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 143/144/436/29 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, directed process to be issued against the...
Ramachandra SwaIn Vs. Duryodhan Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT139; 1996(I)OLR124
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. Defendant No. 3 in the suit has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court reversing the decision of the trial Court and decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract of sale of the suit land. The suit land, as described in the schedule to the plaint is :'District Cuttack, S. R. Tirtol, Touzi No. 2484 Mouza-Raypur patna, Sthitiban Khata No. 134/13 (sabak) plot No. 20, A. O. 21 dec. and plot No. 21, A. O. 20 dec. total A. 0. 41 dec. out of A. 1. 18 dec. towards east, bounded by- N. Bira Sethi and Babaji Sethi, S. River, E. Dhaneswar Behera, W. Keshab Rout.' 2. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Duryodhan Mohapatra filed title Suit No. 68 of 1979 against Gopinath Satapathy (since deceased and substituted by defendants 1,1 /a and 1/b). Laxmidhar Satapathy and Ramachandra Swain, respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively, with the prayers that defendants 1 and 2 be directed for executing and registering the sale deed with respec...
Centre of Integrated Development and Research Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR1
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Centre of Integrated Development and Research (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') has sent a letter to the Honourable the Chief Justice of this Court, for a direction to the concerned authorities for providing necessary safeguard to life of the people of Orissa by ensuring good roads. It is stated that the roads have become so unusable that it is causing not only traffic hazards, but also adding to the cost of maintenance of vehicles, as due to bad roads damage is caused to the vehicles. Construction of new roads are not undertaken and on the other hand, existing roads are also not repaired regularly and properly.2. The learned counsel for State on instruction submitted that all necessary steps are being taken for maintenance of roads and for construction of new roads wherever and whenever necessity arises. This is the stand of Engineer-in-Chief of Public Works.3. 'Road' is a way or passage and the expression cannot be limited to public roads, and to exclude...
Harihar Mohanty and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: II(1996)ACC438; 1996ACJ779; 81(1996)CLT74
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a declaration that the provision in Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is ultra vires the Constitution of India and for quashing of the order dated 19.5.1992 passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, in M.V. Misc. Case No. 162 of 1989 (Annexure 2). In the said order the Tribunal declined to grant the petitioner's prayer to be substituted in the case, instead accepted the petition as a fresh claim petition subject to limitation. The operative portion of the order reads:It is alleged that the cause of death of the deceased has a direct link with the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence the fresh claim petition is accepted subject to limitation which will be decided on merit after hearing the other side and the petitioners are directed to take return of the petition and file the same before the 1st M.A.C.T., Cut...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »