Orissa Court June 1998 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.
State Bank of India Vs. Sabco Industries and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR291
P.K. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal against the order of the trial Court holding that the suit was not maintainable and directing return of the plaint for presentation before the proper Court having territorial jurisdiction.2. The appellant filed T.M.S. No. 89 of 1992 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rairangpur, with the following prayers :'26. The plaintiff therefore prays :(a) that a decree for Rs. 1,59,214.32 (Rupees one lakh fiftynine thousand two hundred fourteen and paise thirty-two only) may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and jointly and severally together pendente lite and future interest. On the said sum of Rs. 86,135.79 (Rupees eighty-six thousand one hundred thirty-five and paise seventy-nine only) at the rate of 15.5%per annum and on Rs. 73,078,53 (Rupees Seventy three thousand seventy-eight and paise fifty-three only) at the rate of 17.25% per annum with quarterly rest.(b) that on failure of the defendants to pay the decretal dues within the ti...
Fagu Meher Vs. Bhama Meher and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR479
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. In this revision application the 1st party in Criminal Misc. Case No. 68 of 1995 of the Court of Executive Magistrate, Sambalpur has challenged the order dated 28.5.1996 by which learned Executive Magistrate has dropped the proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, 'the Code').2. It reveals from the argument advanced and the statements made in the record that there are series of litigations between the parties. A brief sketch of the same will suffice the purpose.This dispute relates to an area of Ac. 2.60 decimals of land recorded in M.S. Khata No. 58 vide plot No. 35. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner initiated Crl. Misc. Case No. 126/82 under Section 145 of the Code in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Sambalpur with respect to Ac. 0.95 decimals of land from out of the aforesaid Ac. 2.60 decimals of land. The decisions of the consolidation authority being in favour of the opposite parties (second party in both the 145 proc...
Prasant Kumar Singh Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4762
ORDERP.K. Tripathi, J.1. Heard.2. It is agreed upon by both the parties that this matter may be disposed of at this stage of hearing on admission.3. Petitioner is one of the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 2 of 1997 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Banki. He prayed for representation under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). That petition was rejected on 6-1 -98 and the following order was passed,The record is put up today on the strength of advance petiton.Advocate for R.N. Prusty files power on behalf of the accused/absconder Sri Prasanta Ku. Singh and files a petition under Section 205, Cr.P.C. praying dispense with the personal appearance of the accused before this Court on the ground stated therein. Copy served on the A.P.P. The petition under Section 205, Cr.P.C. hence rejected.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that grounds advanced in support of the prayer was not at all considered and the petition was rejected under Section 205, Cr.P....
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sk. Salim Khan ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ379Ori
P.K. Misra, J.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act has been filed at the instance of the Insurance Company.2. Claimant-respondent No. 1 was a driver under respondent No. 2. He sustained injury while driving the vehicle. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner directed a sum of Rs. 31,769/- to be paid as compensation. Since the vehicle was insured with the present appellant, it was directed that the amount should be paid by the present appellant.3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the finding of the Commissioner that the claimant was a workman and sustained injury in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment cannot be sustained. He has further submitted that even though the loss of earning capacity has been assessed at 30% in fact, the claimant who was a driver had renewed his driving licence which indicates that there was no loss of earning capacity.4. The finding of the Commissioner to the e...
M. Ramachandra Sahu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: 86(1998)CLT68; 1998CriLJ3413
R.K. Dash, J.1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') assails the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam, passed in G.R. Case No. 1112 of 1985 whereby he has been held guilty and convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, 'the Act') for contravening Clause 3 of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 30 days.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 1-11-85 at about 10.30 P.M. Prabhat Chandra Tripathy, A.S.I, of Police (P.W.3) and Bhagaban Misra, S.I. of Police (P.W.4) while performing patrol duty at Aska Road, found a truck bearing registration No. APP 9538 coming from a petrol pump side and proceeding towards Gate-bazar. They detained the truck and on verification found 47 jerricans full of kerosene. On demand b...
Mamata Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: [2000]99CompCas294(Orissa)
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It has filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1997 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) for specific performance of contract. Without paying the court fee payable on the plaint, it applied for exemption from payment of court fee on the basis of the Government of Orissa Notification S. R. O. No. 575 of 1994, dated June 7, 1994, published in the Orissa Gazette, Extraordinary No. 670, dated June 10, 1994. The said application having been rejected by the trial court, the present revision has been filed. 2. There is no dispute that the State Government has issued a notification in exercise of power under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which is extracted below : 'In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1870), the State Government do hereby remit in the whole of the State of Orissa all fees mentioned in Schedules I and II to the said Act payable for ...
Paradip Port Trust and anr. Vs. Pearl Fish Enterprises and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR127
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendants 1 and 4 have filed this civil revision against the order of the trial Court rejecting the prayer for amendment of the written statement. Opposite party No. 1 has filed Money Suit No. 232 of 1986 for realisation of Rs. 21,11,500/- and for certain other ancillary reliefs. During the hearing of the case, while P.W. 4 was being examined, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed. The said petition was rejected by the trial Court, primarily on the ground of delay in filing the petition for amendment.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that mere delay in filing the petition for amendment cannot be a ground to reject the prayer for amendment and the inconvenience, if any, caused to the plaintiff on account of delay could have been compensated by payment of cost. It has been further submitted that the defendants came to know about the facts sought to be included by way of amendment only during the examination of P.W. ...
Sukru Bibhar Vs. Tileswar Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR129
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendant-appellant, in a pending appeal has filed this Civil Revision challenging the legality of the order of the lower appellate Court rejecting the prayer for adducing additional evidence.2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to recount in detail the cases of either party. Suffice it to say that plaintiffs-opposite parties 1 to 13 having succeeded in the trial Court in T.S. No. 223 of 1989, T.A. No. 14 of 1993 was filed by the present petitioner. During the pendency of the said appeal, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by the present petitioner seeking permission of the appellate Court to adduce additional evidence. The said petition having been rejected by order dated 28.4.1995, the present civil revision has been filed.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced lengthy argument in support of his prayer for adducing additional evidence and the learned counsel for the opposite p...
Sk. Baboo and ors. Vs. Sk. Usman and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR112
P.K. Misra, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this civil revision under the following circumstances.2. A suit for partition has been filed in the Court of the Civil .fudge (Sr.Divn.), Bhadrak, being numbered as O.S. No. 139 of 1996. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed Misc. Case No. 112 of 1996 for temporary injunction. The said petition was disposed of on 1.5.1996 with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed land except three plots namely, plot Nos. 286/4422, 286 and 286/ 4423. The plaintiffs filed Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1996 and Misc. Case No. 26 of 1996, which were rejected by the appellate Court. The plaintiffs filed Civil Revision No. 245 of 1996 in the High Court which was disposed of on 12.9.1996. The High Court while refusing to interfere with the order made the following observations :'...........However, the petitioners will be at liberty to move fresh application for suitable order, if any subsequent act on the part of...
Kailash Chandra Puri Vs. Niranjan Panda and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR472
P.K. Misra, J.1. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the cocpensation amount.2. It is not disputed that the claimant sustained injury on account of an accident caused by Scooter bearing registration number OSU 4838 belonging to present respondent No. 1. It is also undisputed that the said Scooter was being driven by present respondent No. 2. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to be paid by present respondent No. 2, who was driving the Scooter in question. The said respondent No. 2 has filed a Cross-Objection challenging the basis of liability on the ground of want of negligence on his part. The quantum of compensation is also challenged. He has further claimed that the compensation, if any, should be paid by respondent No. 1, as admittedly the Scooter was owned by respondent No. 1 on the date of the accident.3. Though respondent No. 2 has challenged about the negligence in driving on his part, the said contention is not acceptable. The clai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »