Orissa Court January 1999 Judgments
Raghu Mandala Kasibabu Alias Kasibabu Naidu Vs. State Bank of India an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: 87(1999)CLT506
ORDERPradipta Ray, J.1. These two civil revision cases are against the same order and accordingly these two cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.2. R. Yenku Naidu, the predcccssor-in-inter-est of the petitioner and opp. parties 2 to 5 in Civil Revision No. 194/96 took loan from the State Bank of India for purchasing a tractor or March 7, 1984 by Mortgaging Sands appertaining to Khata Nos. 21 and 28 measuring 9.64 acres and 13.16 acres respectively in village Kampo-Malligam in RayagadaTahasil. As the said debtor failed to repay the loan opp. parly No. 1, Slate Bank of India instituted civil suit being Title Suit No. 10 of 1987 against him. On July 30, 1998 the said suit was decreed in preliminary form for Rs. 1,25,848.30 P. with interest and costs. A final decree was passed on October 22, 1989. Opp. party No. 1, Bank, put the decree into execution in S. P. No. 3/90. During pendency of the said execution case the borrower R. Yenku Naidu died leaving t...
Tag this Judgment!Brundaban Samartha and ors. Vs. Shiba Samartha and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ori185; 88(1999)CLT87
P.K. Mishra , J.1. Plaintiffs have filed this second appeal challenging the dismissal of their suit for a permanent, injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from selling Ghee Dipa or Maha Dipa or any other substitutes in the temple premises of Lord Lingaraj. In the suit, the Executive Officer of Lord Lingaraj Temple, has been arrayed as proforma defendants No. 3, but no relief is claimed against defendant No. 3. Both the Courts below have negatived the claim of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, a compromise petition has been filed which has been signed by plaintiff-appellants and defendant No. 2-respondent No. 2.2. The plaintiffs claim that they are doing 'Samartha Seva' for five days a month after death of their father Banchhanidhi Samartha. It is further claimed that Bula Samartha and Raghu Das were also rendering 'Samartha Seva' in the temple of Lord Lingaraj, but after they died issueless, the Board of Trustees of Lord Lingaraj assigned their duties to Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Nanda Vs. Jogendra Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR446
P.K. Misra, J.1. In spite of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of opposite party in the present Civil Revision which is directed against the order dated 7.8.1998 whereunder the lower appellate Court refused to condone delay in filing Title Appeal No. 5/98. The said appeal had been filed by the plaintiff as the suit had been dismissed. It appears that there was delay of 68 days in filing the said title appeal. The present petitioner filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that he could not take steps for filing the appeal in time as he had gone to Tata on 20.9.1997 to see his daughter. The learned District Judge has rejected the aforesaid petition on the ground that going on Tata was not a legal necessity and the appellant had gone at his own risk and stayed there for a long time without any just cause. The said order is under challenge in the present Civil Revision.2. The lower appellate Court has not disbelieved the assertion that the appellant had gone to Tata on 20....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Basanti Das Vs. Smt. Kamala Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ori187
C.R. Pal, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 29-1-1998 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 63 of 1997 by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak confirming the judgment dated 30-8-1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),_ Bhadrak in Election Misc. Case No. 31 of 1997.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows :--The writ petitioner contested for the post of Ward Member of Ward No. 7 of Grade Grama Panchayat against he opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 in the election held an 15-1-1997. In the said election, the petitioner was allowed with the symbol 'Scale' (Nikiti) and opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 were allotted with the symbol 'Bullock Cart' (Gagada) and 'Pen' (Kalams) respectively. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 1 secured 55 valid votes but, as one such valid vote was illegally declared invalid, the valid votes determined in her favour came to 54 despite her protest. It is further alleged that though the presen...
Tag this Judgment!indrajeet Roy Vs. Republic of India and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR478
S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. In this writ application Order No. 19 dated 7.12.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cwm- Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in S.T.Case No. 5 of 1998 is under challenge.2. Factual position is almost undisputed and runs as follows :Petitioner is facing trial for alleged commission of offences punishable Under Sections 354, 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'). On 7.12.1998 P.W. 5 was examined in chief by the Public Prosecutor, CBI before lunch interval. Shri P.C.Kanungo, Advocate was the conducting lawyer for the petitioner. He filed a memorandum indicating that he was not feeling well and therefore, the accused- petitioner, who is an Advocate, may be permitted to cross-examine P.W. 5. A memorandum to that effect signed by the Advocate was filed. The prayer was rejected by the learned C.J.M.-cwm-Assistant Sessions Judge on the ground that the accused-petitioner had engaged more than five Advocates to conduct his case and none ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Sahu and ors. Vs. Director of Consolidation and anr. and Ramesh ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(II)OLR554
ORDER1. In the present writ applicalion the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated June 23. 1998 passed by. the Director of Consolidation, Orissa. Cuttack in Revision .Case No. 4148/97 Under Section 37(2) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Consolidation Act).2. The disputed land originally belonged to one Benga Bewa wife of one Lokanath Behera. In 1961 she transferred .the said land to one Paramananda Sahu. By a registered deed of sale dated October 16. 1973 Parainananda again re-transferred the disputed land to Benga Bewa. During consolidation operation Benga Bewa filed an application before the Assistant Consolidation Officer Under Section 15 of the Consolidation Act to record her name in respect of the disputed land. The Assistant Consolidation Officer rejected the said prayer on the ground that Paramananda did not file any affidavit stating that he did not have any ceiling surplus la...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nahak and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3051
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Above noted two writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Criminal Misc. Case under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'the Code') were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. O.J.C. No. 17838 of 1997 has been filed by the four petitioners stating that on 12-8-1997 one Balaram Mohanty and his son Hrusikesh Mohanty were brutally assaulted. Balaram Mohanty succumbed to the injuries and it became a sensational political murder case of the locality. On the basis of the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) Purusottampur P.S. Case No. 100(4) of 1997 was registered. It is stated in the writ petition that during the course of investigation several material witnesses including the petitioners were examined by the Investigating Officer, but being politically motivated and influenced, the Investigating Officer omitted to keep in record i.e. in the case diary, statements of such material witnesses. Thus, petitioners praye...
Tag this Judgment!Kalinga Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR408
A. Pasayat, J.1. Doubting correctness of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Enertech Engineering Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar I Circle and Anr. : (1998) 110 STC 442, this reference has been made to the larger Bench to adjudicate the following questions :(1) Whether an assessee who executes works contract can ask for insertion of certain items in the certificate of registration issued under the Act or the Central Act to purchase the goods for re-sale '?(2) Whether it is entitled to receive declaration Form XXXIV under the Act, and Forms C and F of the Central Act The 'Act' and 'Central Act' referred to in the questions relate to Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 respectively. A few provisions of the Act and the Central Act need to be noted. Section 2 (g) of the Act defines 'sale' and Section 2 (jj) defines 'works contract'. Section 5 (2)AA deals with 'taxable turnover in respect of works contract' and Section 9 ...
Tag this Judgment!Maheswar Behera and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: 87(1999)CLT656; 1999CriLJ3824
ORDERR.K. Dash, J.1. The appellants hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' have challenged the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Sessions Trial No. 61 of 1986. By the impugned judgment accused Maheswar Behera has been convicted under Sections 304, Part II, 148 and 323 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous, imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 148, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149, IPC. Accused Brahmananda Behera and Jagannath Behera have been convicted under Sections 304, Part II, read with Sections 149,148 and 323/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence unde...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Dalia Sarkar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-1999
Reported in: 87(1999)CLT668; II(1999)DMC127
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioners in this revision, has challenged order of interim maintenance granted in favour of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 vide the impugned order dated 23.1.1995 in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1994 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela.2. Shorn of all details relevant and material facts are noted herewith for. the sake of reference and convenience. Opposite party No. 1 is the legally married wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was solemnised in 1968. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are the unmarried daughters and opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 are sons of the petitioner and opposite party No. 1. 80.3. Opposite party members filed the aforesaid proceeding claiming for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code alleging therein that in December, 1979 petitioner drove them out and has refused to maintain them though he has sufficient means being an employee in the railway department. Petitioner denied to the allegation and stated that opposite party No. 1 leading an adult...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »