Orissa Court July 1996 Judgments
Bhagaban Behera Vs. Dhiraj Kumar Sivjee and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR451
D.M. Patnaik, J. 1. This second appeal is against the confirming judgments of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of his tenancy right and possession in respect of the suit premises. Despite lot of litigations between the parties since 1946. the real title holders nor their transferees have enjoyed the property till now. The present suit is also connected so far as it relates to possession of the premises in question. Considering that a long prelude about the background of the case would burden the Judgment with details which are felt unnecessary for disposal of the second appeal, t proceed to give only the relevant fact of the case as follows: 2. To start with, the second appeal has been admitted on two grounds as detailed below : (i) Whether in view of the finding of the Court in the previous execution proceeding that the plaintiff is not a tenant in respect of the premises in question, the same shall be barred by the principles of res judicata in the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Lambodar Panigrahi Vs. Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-judge-in-charge, ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR319
A. Pasayat, J. 1. A princely sum of Rs. 561/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner which had been paid to him as cost of treatment of his dependants on the ground that treatment should have been taken at a hospital at which Government servant is entitled for treatment free of charge, at the place of his posting and expenses having been incurred for treatment at City Hospital, Cuttack are impermissible and are to be recovered. For this purpose, reliance is placed on a notification issued during pre-independence days i.e. 9-10-1945 to be precise as issued by Government of Orissa in Health and L. S. C. Department. Reference was also made to Orissa Medical (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1947 (n short, the 'Rules').2. Mr. B. K. Patnaik, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that while a person takes a dependant for treatment, he is more concerned about his or her health, about free treatment at a hospital where he is entitled to free treatment. Learnen counsel for the State support...
Tag this Judgment!Harekrushna Samal and ors. Vs. Kashi Mallik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ori43; 82(1996)CLT645
Susanta Chatterji, A.C.J. 1. The question referred to the Full Bench for decision is -- whether in view of Section 51 of the Orisssa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consolidation Act'), a consolidation authority can ignore the adjudication made by the revenue authority under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 which has attained its finality, the same having been not challenged before any higher forum?2. Opposite Party No. 1 Kashi Mallik belongs to scheduled caste. He was the recorded owner of land measuring Ac.O.24.6 Kadis appertaining to Sabik Khata No. 47, Plot Nos. 752 and 753 situated in village Soral. As he was in need of money, he wanted to dispose of the land in question and, accordingly, approached the petitioner and requested him to purchase the land. As the petitioner does not belong to scheduled caste, an application for obtaining permission under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms A...
Tag this Judgment!Mayadhar Bariha Vs. Subdivisional Magistrate and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: 83(1997)CLT310; 1996(II)OLR531
Dipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Bargarh, in Criminal Misc. Case. No. 133 of 1993 whereby the said authority in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has directed maintenance of status quo by both parties with a further stipulation that parties may approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievances.2. The factual backdrop sans unnecessary details is that the petitioner being a village Jhankar performs seva puja of village deities and for the said purpose, he has been permitted to enjoy the disputed land on rent free basis in Bebandobast Case No. 144/83. As the opp. parties 2 to 10 disturbed in his peaceful possession and made attempts to enter upon the suit land, he filed a petition under Section 144 of the Code making a prayer therein to restrain the opposite parties from coming upon the suit l...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ori37; 82(1996)CLT917
Dipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner, an Ex-Sarpanch of Pachhikote Grama Panchayat on behalf of public of the aforesaid Grama Panchayat has approached this Court in the present writ application for issuance of appropriate writ commanding the opposite parties to take effective measures to run Primary Health Centre at Pachhikote within Korei block in the district of Jaipur by providing all amenities and facilities for proper running of the said health centre.2, The facts, bereft of unnecessary details as unfolded are:--On the basis of demands of the local people and public at large, the Government of Orissa in the Department of Health and Family Welfare decided to open certain primary health centres in different areas for the year 1991-92 subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. The aforesaid decision was communicated to the concerned authorities by letter No. 23501 dated 21-6-1991. In the said communication, the name of 'Pachhikote Gram Panchayat' in Korei Block found place. The conditi...
Tag this Judgment!Satrughan Nayak and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1996
Reported in: 82(1996)CLT907
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitionerswho were applicants for allotment if differenttypes of houses under Gopabandhu NagarHousing Scheme, Stage-II, Chhond underRourkela area by the Rourkela DevelopmentAuthority, have jointly approached thisCourt, challenging the enhancement in rateand alteration in the size of plots, intimatedvide Annexure-4 the letter of provisionalallotment made in their favour being illegaland contrary to the stipulations made in thebrochure issued to them, a copy whereof isAnnexure-1.2. The main grievance of the petitioners as revealed from the pleadings and submissions made on their behalf is that the erstwhile Regional Improvement, Trust, Rourkela, published an advertisement inviting application for allotment of houses of different categories like, Economically Weaker Section(E.W.S.), Lower Income Group (L.I.G.), Middle Income Group (M.I.G.) and Higher Income Group (H.I.G.)- at Gopabandu Nagar Composite Housing Accommodation Scheme at Chhend in last part of December,...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagaban Mallik Vs. Nagendra Biswal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1024; 1996(II)OLR298
Dipak Misra, J. 1. Entertaining doubt and visualising a situation which requires reconciliation and clarification of the judgment rendered in the cases of Asit Kumar Mohanty v. Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack and Ors. (Vol. 60 (1988) CLT 587) restricting the applicability of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') to a particular stage before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Durga Devi Mishra v. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. : (Vol. 67 (1989) CLT 184) wherein it has been held that Order 9 is applicable to a proceeding before the Tribunal but without indicating any restriction thereof, our learned brother P. C. Naik, J. felt the necessity for an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench for which we are in seisin of this Miscellaneous Appeal preferred Under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act').2. To appreciate the legal position a brief reference to the factual matrix is necessary. Appellant Bh...
Tag this Judgment!Himansu Parida Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1996
Reported in: 82(1996)CLT585; 1996(II)OLR372
Dipak Misra, J. 1. Inaction of the opp. parties in not issuing the order of appointment for the post of Typist in spite of three vacancies in contravention of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts Ministerial Services (Mothod of Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1969 (in short, 'the Rules'), is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ application at the instance of the petitioner.2. In response to an advertisement issued by opp. party No. 1, the District Judge, Bolangir, for recruitment to the post of Typists and Stenographers etc. the petitioner submitted an application with all details and as he fulfilled the required eligibility criteria he was permitted to appear in the written recruitment examination and being successful in the said examination he was called to appear in the typing and viva voce test in which he successfully qualified by obtaining 3rd position in the merit list of successful typists. Serial Nos. 1 and 2 in the...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Kumar Panda Vs. National Aluminium Company Limited and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR619
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The writ petitioner who was working as a French Interpreter in Nationa Aluminium Company Limited from February, 1980 till December, 1989 oh contract basis, challenges the action of the opp parties in not granting him renewal/extension of service, even though, persons similarly placed and even his juniors have been allowed to continue. The further grievance of the petitioner Is that his representation for permanent absorption in service has illegally not been considered to keep him out of service for no reason whatsoever. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a French Interpreter by National Aluminium Company Limited (hereinafter called as 'Company'.) on contract basis initially for a period of one year in a consolidated salary of Rs. 1400/- per month being duly selected for the post and pursuant to the letter of appointment issued on 25-1-19 5, he joined the Company on 11-2-1985. The appointment was further extended for another ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagaban Mallik Vs. Nagendra Biswal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1996
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC713
Dipak Misra, J.1. Entertaining doubt and visualising a situation which requires reconciliation and clarification of the judgment rendered in the cases of Asit Kumar Mohanty v. Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack and Ors. Vol. 67 (1988) CLT 587, restricting the applicability of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') to a particular stage before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Durga Devi Mishra v. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vol. 67 (1989) CLT 184, wherein it has been held that Order 9 is applicable to a proceeding before the Tribunal but without indicating any restriction thereof, our learned brother P.C. Naik, J. felt the necessity for an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench for which we are in session of this Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act').2. To appreciate the legal position a brief reference to the factual matrix is necessary. Appellant Bhagaban ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »