Orissa Court April 1996 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.
Braja Mohan Jena and ors. Vs. Haripada Bayan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-1996
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT660
Dipak Misra, J.1. There is no question here of what may be called sentimental damages, bereavement or pain and suffering. It is a hard matter of pounds, shillings and pence, subject to the element of reasonable future probabilities.'The aforesaid is the pronouncement of Lord Wright in his inimitable and impeccable style in the case of Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. (1942) AC 601. This has settled the law that no solatium is payable. There is no compensation for sentimental agony, no damage for heart's anguish and no financial assistance for mental tribulations. The whole essence is computation of the loss sustained and adjudicated by pragmatic parameters. True it is, payment of solatium is not permissible. But should the dependants or the legal representatives of the victim of an accident be deprived of just compensation? Precisely, this is the challenge in the present miscellaneous appeal preferred by the desolate parents who are aggrieved by the award passed by t...
Keshaba Patra Vs. Jamuna Patra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC56
A. Pasayat, J.1. These three revision applications are taken up together as they are interlinked.2. Petitioner Keshab Patra is the husband of Jamuna Patra, and father of Puspanjali and Saraswati, opp. parties in die applications. A monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/-had been granted in favour of Jamuna, Puspanjali and Saraswati in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'). Application was filed by each of them for enhancement in terms of Section 127 of the Code. Learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela (in short, 'the Family Court') accepted the prayer and enhanced the quantum to Rs. 500/- per month. Such enhancement is the subject-matter of challenge in each application.3. Stand of the petitioner Keshab in support of the revision applications is two-fold. Firstly, it is stated that the alteration in allowance as directed was without any material. The essential ingredient for such enhancement i.e. change of circumstances has not been established. Sec...
Keshaba Patra Vs. Jamuna Patra,
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR522
A. Pasayat, J. 1. These three revision applications are taken up together as they are interlinked.2. Petitioner Keshab Patra is the husband of Jamuna Patra, and father of Puspanjali and Saraswati, opp. parties in the applications. A monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- had been granted in favour of Jamuna, Puspanjali and Saraswati in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'). Application was filed by each of them for enhancement in terms of Section 127 of the Code. Learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela (in short, 'the Family Court)' accepted the prayer, and enhanced the quantum to Rs. 500/-per month. Such enhancement is the subject-matter of challenge in each application.3. Stand of the petitioner Keshab in support of the revision applications is two-fold. Firstly, it is stated that the alteration in allowance as directed was without any material. The essential ingredient for such enhancement i. e. change of circumstances has not been established. ...
Hari Mohapatra and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2952; 1996(I)OLR488
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The two accused persons in G. R. Case No. 410 of 1990 pending in the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magi-Decided on 10th April, 1996. strate, Nayagarh, have filed this revision for quashing the aforesaid criminal proceeding.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2. The FIR was lodged on 3-10-1990 by present opp. party No. 2 alleging that on 27-9-1930 at about 4 p.m. the two petitioners entered inside the house of the informant and at the instigation of petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 1 outraged the modesty of opp. party No. 3. the daughter of the informant, and attempted to commit rape. After investigation was over, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 448/114/354/406/ 511 /34, Indian Penal Code, and cognisance was taken by the Magistrate. Though in the charge-sheet and order of cognisance. Section 511 alone was indicated, it is evident that the cognisance was in respect of the alleged offence under Section 376, read with Section 511, Indian Penal...
Harmohan Rout Vs. Karunakar Sahu, Headmaster-cum-secretary of Panchaya ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR516
S. Chatterji, A.C.J. 1. This case appears to be a story of pride and prejudice. Teachers of this country are well respected. This Bench has respect for all the teaching community as a whole. But the people must understand and appreciate that law is above all and it has to be respected. In the present case, there was an order of transfer of the petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher of Panchayat High School, Rekhideipur. The said order of transfer was stayed by this Court. However, the Headmaster of the school took exception and in spite of the order of this Court staying the order of transfer of the petitioner, he was not permitted to join the school. The allegation is that in spite of the order being communicated, the Headmaster did not permit the petitioner to join the school. It is also alleged that in spite of the communication of the order by the Directorary Second, Education, Orissa, and the Inspector of Schools concerned, the Headmaster remained adamant not to comply with the C...
Nakula SwaIn and ors. Vs. Jogendra Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT765; 1996(I)OLR534
Dipak Misra, J. 1. The defendants-petitioners have preferred this Civil Revision challenging the order in Misc. Appeal No. 40/92 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar confirming the order passed by the learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No. 71/92 refusing to entertain an application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'the Code') to set aside the ex parte decree.2. The factual scenario as emerges is as follows :The opp. party as plaintiff instituted Title- Suit No. 209/90 in the Court of Munsif, Bhubaneswar for correction of Record-of-rights. The present revisionists who were the defendants in the Court below entered appearance in the aforesaid suit and sought adjournments on many an occasion for the purpose of filing of written statement. On 19-8-1991 the petition for time was rejected and the suit was fixed for ex parte hearing. The defendants did not take steps to recall the order setting them ex parte and allowed the suit ...
Mukha Nayak and ors. Vs. Umakanta Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: 82(1996)CLT299; 1996(I)OLR505
Dipak Misra, J. 1. Rejection of application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Coda of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') for adducing additional evidence by the appellate Court is the grievance of the petitioners in the present civil revision.2. The opposite parties as plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No. 32/82 (I) before the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak, presently designated as Civil Judge (Senior Division) for a declaration that registered sale deed dated 18-5-1932 is void, for permanent injunction and alternatively for passing a decree for partition. The trial Court decreed the suit by declaring the registered sale deed as void and also passed the decree permanently injuncting the present petitioners. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioners preferred Title Appeal No. 69/89 before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants therein filed two applications, one for amendment of written statement and...
Bhagaban Sethi and ors. Vs. Bhubanananda Samantray
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR485
P.K. Misra, J. 1. Some of the members of second party in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as the 'Code') are the petitioners in this application under Section 482, read with Section 401 of the Code for quashing the order under Section 107 of the Code.2. The petitioners claim that most of them are employees either under the Government or under some public sector undertakings. It is stated that the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code has been initiated on the basis of frivolous allegations made by the first party-apposite party. It is submitted that the notice under Aunexure-1 is invalid on the pre-conditions for initiating a proceeding under Section 107(1) of the Code have not been fulfilled. It is further submitted that since no enquiry has been conducted before initiation of the proceeding under Section 107(1) of the Code, the proceeding should be quashed. It is further submitted that along with the notice under Annexure-1...
NabIn Chandra Kansabehera Vs. Hemant Kumari Kansabehera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2782
ORDERC.R. Pal, J.1. The petitioner questions the legality of the order dated 25-8-1995 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gunupur (in short, 'SDJM') attaching the salary of the present petitioner towards the interim maintenance granted in favour of the opposite party.2. The facts of the case are as follows :The opposite party of this Misc. case filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month from her husband, the present petitioner, alleging that she was tortured and illtreated by her husband for not fulfilling his demand of dowry and was forced to leave the house of her husband on 16-8-1992 and since then she was living with her uncle. It is also alleged that her husband has sufficient means and is liable to maintain her as she is unable to maintain herself. The said petition was registered as Misc. case No. 2 of 1993. While the Misc. case was pending for appearance of this petiti...
Md. Zurat Azad Khan Vs. Jajati Adhikari
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: 83(1997)CLT212
P.K. Misra, J.1. The opposite party in a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') is the appellant against a confirming judgment.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief facts giving rise to this second Appeal are as follows. The decree in Money Suit No. 136 of 1985 for realisation of certain amount was put to execution in E. P. No. 49 of 1988 in the Court of the subordinate Judge, Jeypore. The disputed property was attached and put to auction wherein the present respondent was the purchaser (hereinafter referred to as the 'auction-purchaser'). After obtaining the sale certificate, the auction-purchaser took steps to take possession through the process of court. Delivery of possession was obstructed by the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'third party'). The auction purchaser approached the executing court under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code complaining about the obstruction by the third party. The cas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »