Orissa Court September 1997 Judgments
Niranjan Mohapatra and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)8; 1998CriLJ630; 1997(II)OLR456
D.M. Patnaik, J. 1. The above two appeals are heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In both the above appeals, all the appellants have been convicted under Section 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the years and seven years respectively, but appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 94 have been released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.3. The prosecution case in brief is, deceased Renubala alias Ranjita married appellant Niranjan sometime during the year 1989 according to the Hindu rites. After marriage while the deceased was staying with her in-laws, it was alleged by the parents of the deceased that she used to complain of being tortured and ill-treated by the appellants because of non-payment of Rs. 3000/- being the balance amount of the dowry promised by the father, P.W. 5 at the time of marriage.On 29.12.1992 about 1.00 A.M. in the night, P.Ws. 2 and 3 heard splashing s...
Tag this Judgment!Tirtha Kumbhar Vs. Smt. Koili KumbharIn and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 85(1998)CLT382; 1997(II)OLR352
P.K. Misra, J. 1. Defendant No. 2 in Title Suit No. 19 of 1983 has filed this Civil Revision. An ex parte order had been passed against him. He filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree. The said application was allowed by the trial Court and the ex parte decree was set aside. Against the said order, Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 1994 was filed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1/a, the legal representative of the original defendant No. 1. The appellate Court without considering the question of maintainability of such appeal (to be fair to the appellate Court - and, in fact, such question had not been raised either in the office note or by the counsel for the respondent) allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court. The net result was that the ex parte decree against the present petitioner was resurrected. The legality of the order of the appellate Court is being impugned in this Civil Revision.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Patra Vs. Gouranga Patra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1997(II)OLR409
P.K. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiff-appellant has filed this revision against the order dated 8.12.1993 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Champua, in Title Appeal No. 1/93 rejecting the application of the present petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the appellate Court.2. There was delay of 14 days in filing the appeal before the appellate Court. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed wherein it was stated that the appeal could not be filed in time as the appellant was suffering from high fever. The said application was supported by a certificate issued by a medical practitioner. The appellant also examined himself as a witness. However, the appellate Court held that since the appellant had admitted in evidence that he had attended his duties on 2.5.1993 to 17.5.1993, there was no reason why he did not prefer appeal within the period of limitation. The appellate Court overlooked the fact that the appellate was a resident of Barbil and attending...
Tag this Judgment!Pradipta Kishore Routray and ors. Vs. Narendra Chandra Pandey and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1997(II)OLR375
P.K. Misra, J.1. Since both the Civil Revisions are between the same parties and raise common questions of law, both have been heard together an dare disposed of by this common judgment.2. Civil Revision No. 45/96 is directed against an order dated 3.2.1996 in title Suit No. 50/92 and Civil Revision 47/96 is directed against order dated 3.2.1996 in Title Suit No. 49/92 rejecting the prayer of defendants 4 to 6 for amendment of the written statement. Plaintiffs opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed the aforesaid suits for declaration of their right, title and interest and for declaration that the sale deeds executed by defendants 1 to 2 in the suit in favour of recovery of possession. The substance of their cases is that since, the disputed property was the undivided interest of joint family, the alienations were invalid.3. Written statement had been filed by defendants 4 to 6, the alieneous, who are the petitioners is these two civil revisions. In their written statement, defendants 4 to...
Tag this Judgment!Lingaraj Flour Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. the State of Orissa, Represented by ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(II)OLR403
A. Pasayat, J.1. During pendency of a reference application under Section 24(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act'), petitioner has prayed for stay of realisation of extra demand raised for the assessment year 1985-86.2. A brief reference to the factual aspect is necessary.An ex parte assessment was made by the Sales-tax Officer which resulted in extra demand of Rs. 23,49,393/- inclusive of demand raised under the Orissa Additional Sales-tax Rules, 1975 (in short, 'the Rules'). Petitioner preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Ganjam Range, Berhampur. The appellate authority reduced the total demand to Rs. 5,21,981/-. The order of Assistant Commissioner was assailed by both the petitioner and the Revenue before the Orissa Sales-tax Tribunal. The appeals were numbered as Second Appeal Nos. 1035 and 1034 of 1988-89, and 1109 and 1110 of 1988-89 respectively. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue and restored the demands raised by the Sales...
Tag this Judgment!Bhubaneswar City Distribution Division Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 85(1998)CLT198; (1998)IILLJ1044Ori
R.K. Patra, J.1. The Bhubaneswar City Distribution Division represented through its Executive Engineer, Electrical Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar is the petitioner. It has tiled this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order at Annexure -5 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa, Bhubaneswar under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 (in short, 'the Act') levying damages on it amounting to Rs. 10,80,125/- for the delayed payment of the statuary dues for the periods 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91.2. Shri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner raises the following contentions in support of the application:-(i) The petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the 1 delayed payment of dues for the period 1986-87 in as much as in the show cause notice at Annexure-2 there was no such allegation but in the impugned...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Prasad Patra and ors. Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 85(1998)CLT444; 1997(II)OLR363
S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. As common questions of law and act are involved in all these 21 writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Opp. party No. 1, United Bank of India (hereinafter called 'the Bank') has transferred 32 of its officers to outside the State of Orissa. But of these 32 officers, 21 have filed the above writ petitions challenging their orders of transfer, vide Annexure-1 to the writ petitions, on the ground that the said orders are contrary to the Guidelines for Posting and Transfer/Placement for officers framed by the Bank, which is annexed as Annexure-2, to the writ petitions. The transfer orders being similar, we may refer to the facts in O. J. C. No. 8779 of 1997.3. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that the United Bank of India Officers' Association Central Council have approved the guidelines and, therefore, the parties are expected to adhere to the said guidelines. The minutes of discussions between the re...
Tag this Judgment!Ujjal Maitra and ors. Vs. Kanchan Maitra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1002; 1997(II)OLR415
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Heard.2. This is a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') filed by the accused persons in Complaint case vide I.C.C. No. 41/95 of the Court of sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh at Uditnagar, Rourkela. Complainant is the opposite party. The petitioners have prayed that in exercise of the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. this Court should quash the impugned order dated 13.7.1995 wherein order was passed to issue process under Section 204, Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 498A/34, IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.3. During the course of hearing argument on admission, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his argument only with respect to accused/petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 and he does not press the case so far as accused/petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned. Therefore, the scope of examinations of the impugned order is conf...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Urmila Sahu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1372; 1997(II)OLR426
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedAddl. Standing Counsel for the State.2. The facts in brief involved in this case are that G.R. Case No. 214 of 1989 corresponding to Digapahandi P. S. Case No. 77 of 1989 was registered against the petitioner and the co-accused for the offences under Sections 498A/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Charge-sheet was filed on 30.6.1991 showing the petitioner as an absconder. It is not disputed at the Bar that the attendance of the petitioner could not be secured. Thus, the G.R. Case was splitted and G.R. Case No. 214/A of 1989 against the petitioner was sent to the dormant file. So far as the co-accused is concerned, the trial of G.R. Case No. 214/89 is presently pending at the stage of hearing argument.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the case and she was wrongly shown as an absconder. He further states that in G.R. Cas...
Tag this Judgment!Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jai Bhawani P ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(II)OLR527
Pradipta Ray, J. 1. Opposite party M/s. Jaya Bhawani Pvt. Ltd. has a Rice Mill at Bolangir. Opposite party entered into an Insurance contract with Bolangir Branch office of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company. The policy of Insurance was issued by Bhawanipatna Branch Office as the prescribed policy forms were not available at Bolangir. Contract of insurance contained an arbitration clause (Clause 13). There was a fire in the said rice mill at Bolangir causing damages. Opposite party lodged a claim for compensation before Bolangir Branch office of Insurance Company. Entire claim of opposite party was not accepted by Insurance Company. Compensation paid by the Insurance Company did not satisfy the opposite party. Arbitration clause was invoked and both the Insurance Company and the opposite party nominated their respective arbitrator for determination of the dispute. The Arbitrator appointed by the Insurance Company was a Chartered Accountant of Bhubaneswar while the Arbitrator appointed by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »