Orissa Court January 1998 Judgments
Pujapanda Nijog of Lord Jagannath Temple Vs. Pratihari Nijog and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-1998
Reported in: 85(1998)CLT240
ORDERPradipta Ray, J.1. The present petitioner as plaintiff filed O.S. No. 12/80-I in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri against the opp. parlies. The suit was filed on March 18, 1980 and was valued at Rs. 7,7 00/-. In the said suit petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code which was registered as Misc. Case No. 103 of 1981. By judgment and order dated October 8, 1985 the trial Court allowed the said application in part and restrained the opp. parties from receiving dry bhog from the pilgrims and other devotees on the pretext of offering the same to the deities. The trial Court, however, refused to prohibit payment of Dakshina to the opp. parties. Against the said interim order present opp. parties I and 2 filed Misc. Appeal No. 70/98 of 1985/86 in the Court of District Judge, Puri. By judgment and order dated November 4, 1994 Second Additional District Judge, Puri passed the following order :'The defendants 1 to 4(a) in T. S. 12/80...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Ch. Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ori193
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The writ petitioner has challenged the decision dated 29-12-1992 made by the Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack in Stamp Revision Case No. 1 of 1989 in the matter of a petition under Sections 56 and 57 of the Indian Stamp Act. Alternatively he has prayed to treat the writ petition as one to determine the proper stamp duty payable on the deed of dissolution of partnership pending registration before opposite party No. 4. Sub-Registrar. Berhampur and necessary direction for registration.2. Briefly speaking, the dispute had arisen while partners of M/s. Ganapati Sahu & Sons, a partnership firm, had decided to dissolve the partnership. The petitioner was a partner of the said firm. Accordingly a deed of dissolution of partnership was made and the same was executed. The said deed was presented for registration under the Indian Registration Act before the Registering Officer, opposite party No. 4. The registering authority finding the document not duly stamped, referre...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Pranabandhu Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ori156; 85(1998)CLT553
P.K. Misra, J.1. State of Orissa represented through the District Collector, Sambalpur, the sole defendant in the trial Court in Money Suit No. 9 of 1984, has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court awarding a sum of Rs. 66,600/- as damages to the plaintiffs with proportionate cost and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.2. The two plaintiffs who are respectively father and son had filed the suit claiming Rs. 91,600/- as damages with interest under following circumstances : The plaintiffs claim that they are the owners and occupiers of the disputed lands and they had been raising paddy crops on a portion of me disputed lands and the rest was being used as orchard for raising varieties of fruits and vegetables. In the year 1983-84, the defendant re-constructed the Kalajira Kata of village Ballam by raising the level of water escape as a result of which the disputed lands of the plaintiffs were submerged damaging the crops, f...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. SirajuddIn and ors. Vs. Harihar Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ori134
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the appellants. Plaintiffs-Respondents 1 to 4 and proforma defendants 5 to 7 (Respondents 6 to 8) are the successors-in-interest of late Gajendra Narayan Panda, Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 being the sons, plaintiff No. 4 being the widow and defendants 5 to 7 being the daughters. The suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of disputed 'Ka' schedule property, recovery of possession and for mesne profit and for permanent injunction, 'Ka' schedule property consists of two plots ,plot Nos. 33 and 34 corresponding to major, settlement Khasada No. 491 with an area of AO. 79 decimals.2. According to the plaintiffs' case, the said disputed land had been purchased by their predecessor-in-interest, Gajendra Narayan Panda, from Bidyadhar Satpathy and Gadadhar Satpathy in July, 1934 and, thereafter, the plaintiffs are in possession. It is further stated that proforma defendants 5 to 7 had relinquished their interest infavour of the...
Tag this Judgment!Basudev Pandey Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: 87(1999)CLT136; 1999CriLJ4052; 1998(II)OLR491
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner in this revision challenges the order of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below convicting the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a) (i) and (iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months on each count with a direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.2. Prosecution case is as follows : On 20.4.1991, the Food Inspector (P.W.I) along with his Peon (P.W. 2) visited the grocery shop of the petitioner situated at village Ingsa and found that the licence of the petitioner had not been renewed after 31.12.1989. The Food Inspector suspected that Atta and refined rice-bran oil exposed for human consumption were adulterated. After disclosing his intention and identity, he served notice and purchased 600 grams of Atta and 375 grams of refined rice-bran oil on payment of Rs. 11.25 pa...
Tag this Judgment!Ajoya Kumar Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ori116; 85(1998)CLT504
S.N. Phukan, J.1. The petitioner is an unemployed civil engineering graduate and is a registered Class-A contractor. A notice inviting tenders was issued on 16-9-1997, vide Annexure-1 for construction of vented causeway over Sialjore Nallah at 8th km. on M. R. D.-31 to Jarabaga Road in Sambalpur District. In the tender notice, it was indicated that the tenderers should possess/procure the machineries required for the work as the department would not supply the machineries. The case of the petitioner is that though he was the lowest tenderer, the contract was not awarded to him.2. In the counter affidavit, it is not disputed that sealed tenders were invited for the above work. It has been stated that there were eleven tenderers and nine were found valid. It is also not disputed that the tender of the petitioner was the lowest. It has, however, been stated that it was found that the petitioner does not possess the machineries required for the work and the machineries which the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar Kumar and anr. Vs. Mohanlal Sharma
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ori117
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendants are theappellants against a reversing decision.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction to remove the extended projection of the roof of the defendants' house on the ground that the said roof of the house is projecting and extending over the land belonging to the plaintiff, as a result of which the rain water is falling over the kitchen garden of the plaintiff and thus causing extensive loss and damages. The defendants in the written statement while denying the plaint allegations claim that the roof is projecting over the vacant side belonging to the defendants themselves.3. The trial Court dismissed the suit on thefinding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed land belongs to the plaintiff. The Appellate court reversed the finding of the trial Court and decreed the suit by holding that the disputed land belongs to the plaintiff.4. During the pendency of the suit, a Civil Court Commissioner had been deputed. Though the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bisi Chhuria Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)6; 1999CriLJ1078
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 90/5 of 1991 has challenged the order of conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment vide judgment dated 18-11-1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir.2. Prosecution case, as reveals from the lower Court record, is that in the morning hours on 25-7-90 Saibasuta Chhuria, a boy aged about 12 to 13 years (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') had gone to the field to tend to the goats. There he was killed by the appellant who dealt axe blow to the neck of the deceased. Though the occurrence was not witnessed by anybody but soon after the occurrence the brother of the deceased Chakaman Chhuria (P. W. 7) reached there to hand over food to the deceased. When he called aloud his brother the accused from the spot of the occurrence on the field responded by saying that the deceased was no more alive as he (the appellant) killed him (the deceased). P. W. 7 went nearer and found the deceased wa...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Samani Mohantani Vs. Duryodhan Mohanta and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ori76; 85(1998)CLT435
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. The second appeal is against the confirming judgments of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiffs suit for partition where in she claims half share in the property situate in village Surubali.2. Plaintiff's case is that her father Nutunu Mohanla had two wives, the elder one being Lata having predecesed Nutun and the second wile Nirasa, mother of the plaintiff. It is claimed that Nirasa died sometime during 1958 leaving behind the plaintiff as the sole heir. Lata had two daughters namely Domani and Nali. Defendant No. 1 is the daughter of Domani and defendants 3, 4 and 5 are sons of Nali. It is the plaintiff's case that she was jointly enjoying the property along with Domuni and Nali and after death of Nali the parties also lived jointly and possessed the land but sometime thereafter they deprived the plaintiff from enjoyment of the properly without giving any share to her even though she demanded for the same. Therefore, she filed the suit for partition.3. The defe...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kamala Kumari Bohara Vs. Harekrishna Ghadei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ori196
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant against a confirming decision. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed O.S. No. 182 of 1979 for declaration that the transfer of the disputed property is void and in the alternative, to allow the plaintiff to re-purchase the disputed land.2. Plaintiff is the son of one Bhikari Ghadei. Defendant No. 1 is the alienee from Gurbari, widow of Bhikari Ghadei and defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters. It is claimed that the disputed land is the ancestral property of Bhikari Ghadei who expired in the year 1971. Thereafter, on 18-1-1974 plaintiffs mother Gurubari alienated the disputed property for Rs. 100/- in favour of defendant No. 1 by executing a sale deed for herself as well as on behalf of her minor son, the plaintiff. On receipt of notice in Mutation Case No. 5012/76, the plaintiff came to know about the illegal allegation by his mother and thereafter filed that suit on 14-12-1979 claiming that he is not bound by the sale deed (Ext.A). It was fu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »