Orissa Court October 1997 Judgments
Mohammad Badrul Alam Vs. Rubi Alias Rubi Alam
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-1997
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR306
C.R. Pal, J.1. In this revision petition the legality of the order dated 3.7.1996 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack in Criminal Misc. Case No. 663 of 1996 restoring the custody of the minors to the present opp. party, who was the petitioners before the learned S.D.M., is under challenge.2. The facts of the case which gave rise to this revision are as follows : The present petitioner is the husband of the opposite party. The petitioner married the opp. party on 29.12.1987 at Cuttack and both of them went to U.S.A. where the petitioner was serving. During the subsistence of that marriage, while they were living as husband and wife in U.S.A. they were blessed with three children namely Saira alam a daughter, Mohammad Zubair a son and Sadaf Alam a daughter who were respectively aged 6 years, 4/2 years and 3 years at the time of filing of the petition before the learned S.D.M. The present petitioner-husband (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') with the...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Manager, Representing the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhuban ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ori52
D.M. Patnaik, J. 1. The matter for decision is whether the award of compensalion of Rs. 60,000/- for the loss of life of a child aged four years by the 2nd M.A.C.T., Berhampur is suslainable in the eye of law and if so, whether the amount is excessive. 2. One Banita Kumari Sahu, daughter of the claimanls died in a motor accident on 7-6-93 around 9.30 a.m. on the P.W.D. road near village Jamagarada under the Buguda Police Station in the district of Ganjam. It is claimed that the driver of the vehicle bearing regisiration No. ORG 1136 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accidenl. 3. The appellant Insurance Company a well as the owner of the vehicle both contested the case. While the owner denied the rash and ncgligent driving by the driver, the Insurance Company took the plea of absence of valid insurance as well as absence of valid driving licence of the driver. The Tribunal framed the following issues :-- 1. Whelher the vehicle bearing regisiration No. ORG 1...
Tag this Judgment!Kannankara Kuria-kosa Thomas Vs. Shriram Saw Mills and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ori68; 85(1998)CLT120
ORDERR.K. Dash, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 62 of 1990 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Nayagarh, has preferred this revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') challenging the order dated 18-8-1995 whereby the plaintiff's prayer for amendment of pleading under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC has been allowed. M/s. Shriram Saw Mills (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff) is a registered partnership firm of which Sila Rajeswar Rao is the Managing Partner. It has filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner as well as Government of Orissa and its functionaries (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant's) for a decree for specific performance of contract and other ancillary reliefs. 2. Plaintiffs case, in brief, is this : Defendant No. 1 is the owner of the suit land measuring Ac. 20.53 dec., more specifically described in the schedule of the plaint over which there has been a forest growth. In order to have rubber plantations on the suit la...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Tabha Berihani Vs. Prafulla Chandra Bhoi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(II)OLR495
R.K. Dash, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in Money Suit No. 10 of 1980 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Patnagarh, presently designated as Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patnagarh has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree whereby the plaintiff's suit for money on the basis of document, Ext. 1 (which the trial Court termed as pro-nots) has been decreed.2. The plaintiff's case, in short, is that the defendant being in need of money approached the plaintiff for a loan to which the plaintiff agreed and advanced a sum of Rs. 9,000/- with an understanding that she would transfer her land by registered sale deed after obtaining necessary permission from the revenue authorities. As a matter of fact, defendant made application to the S.D.O., Patnagarh, seeking necessary permission as required under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, but no permission was accorded since defendant's daughter raised objection the proposed sale. In view of such objection being raised, plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Pravakar Pradhan Vs. Bhaktabandhu Sahoo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR690
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Malheipada Grama Panchayat. Altogether there were four candidates. Present opposite party No. 1, who was the nearest candidate to the petitioner, filed Election Misc. Case No. 3 of 1997 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deogarh, mainly on the allegation that the present petitioner was not eligible to contest for the office of Sarpanch as he was disqualified to file nomination in view of the provisions contained in Section 25(1)(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') having more than two children. The trial Court allowed the election petition, set aside the election of the present petitioner and declared present opposite party No. 1 to be duly elected. The said decision of the trial Court has been challenged by the present petitioner before the District Judge, Sambalpur, by filing Misc. (Election) Appeal No. 26 of 1997. During the pendency of the said appeal, the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Indrajeet Roy Vs. Republic of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-10-1997
Reported in: 84(1997)CLT692; 1997(II)OLR499
P.K. Misra, J.1. This application under Section 439, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the 'Cr.P.C.') is a sequel to the judgment dated 15th, September, 1997, passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Dash, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2803 of 1997. Since the question raised involves a point relating to interpretation of the said judgment, in normal course, the matter should have been placed before the very same Bench. However, as the matter has been moved during vacation and the learned Judge due to unavoidable circumstances is not in a position to take up the matter, the matter has been directed to be placed before me as the Vacation Judge under certain unusual circumstances. Initially, on 4.10.1997, the date of presentation of this application, Shri B.K. Nayak, the learned counsel for the petitioner, appeared before me at my residential office as I am in charge of Vacation Court will 10th of October, 1997, for the purpose of finding out about the convenience ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›