Orissa Court January 1999 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.
Sarat Chandra Pattnaik Vs. Binodini Pattnaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: 88(1999)CLT6; II(1999)DMC356
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Opposite party in Criminal Misc. Case No. 42/89 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daspalla has preferred this revision challenging the order of monthly maintenance granted at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to the present opposite party (who was the petitioner in the lower Court), vide the impugned judgment dated 19.4.1994.2. Claiming to be the legally married wife on the basis of a temple marriage at Tarini Temple and thereafter claiming cruelty and desertion and her inability to sustain her livelihood opposite party claimed for maintenance from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month on the ground that petitioner, who is her husband, is an employee under the Forest Corporation and earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and besides that he-has landed property ennuring an income of Rs. 20,000/- per annum. She also alleged that after deserting her, petitioner has already mar...
Ramamani Dei and anr. Vs. Benudhar Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: 88(1999)CLT207; 1999CriLJ1212; II(1999)DMC664; 1999(I)OLR333
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioners have preferred this revision challenging judgment dated 13.3.1995 passed by learned J.M.F.C, Nimapara in Crl. Misc. Case No. 35 of 1987 under Section 125, Cr. P.C. She has impugned the order of refusing to grant maintenance.2. As it reveals from the lower Court record, petitioner No. 1 claiming herself to be the legally married wife of the opposite party and petitioner No. 2 to be their daughter and alleging desertion, cruelty and lack of means to sustain their livelihood prayed for maintenance from opposite party stating that opposite party has sufficient means to pay maintenance. In their application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. petitioner No. 1 stated that because of intimacy between herself and opposite party, they performed secret marriage by exchange of garland in local Radhakanta temple and when she conceived and it was known to the relations and the co-villagers, the family of opposite party backed out. However, on the persuasion of the petitioner...
Rankanidhi Behera Vs. Jayanti Sahoo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2127
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Both the aforesaid revisions have been heard analogously and disposed of by this judgment.2. Opposite party No. 1 for herself and on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 who were the minor children, filed petition under Section 125(3), Cr. P.C. claiming for maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that she and opposite parties 2 and 3 born out of the wedlock were ill-treated and deserted by the petitioner though he is capable of maintaining them having sufficient means. That application was registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 74/89 in the Court of SDJM, Jaipur. Later on it was transferred to the file of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and registered as Crl. Proceeding No. 388 of 1991. Petitioner contested that case. In his show cause he admitted the relationship, but refused to pay maintenance on the ground that opposite party No. 1 is leading an adulterous life with one Mina Behera and voluntarily deserted him. In support of their respective cases both (he part...
Bimbadhar Behera Vs. Smt. Pratimamani Behera and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1085
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Order D/- 13-9-1996 in Misc. Case No. 168 of 1991 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') of the Court of S. D. J. M., Balasore is under challenge in this revision.2. Undisputed facts in the case are that petitioner and opposite party No. 1 are husband and the wife and opposite party No. 2 is their daughter. Petition under Section 125 of the Code vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 1/93 of 1982 filed by opposite party claiming maintenance was allowed on 1-6-1993 and monthly maintenance of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 70/- was ordered to be paid to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. On the grounds of increase of the cost of daily use commodity and hike in the cost of living on 3-7-1991 petition under Section 127 of the Code for enhancement of monthly maintenance was filed by the opposite parties which was registered as Misc. Case No. 169 of 1991. During pendency of that Misc. Case opposite party No. 2 married and therefore, petition for...
Adwaita Charan Choudhury Vs. Smt. Tohphani Choudhury
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: 87(1999)CLT56; 1999CriLJ1209
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Judgment dated 4-10-1997 in Crl. Proceeding No. 321 of 1994 Under Section 125, Cr.P.C of the Court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, wherein monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- was allowed in favour of the opposite party, has been impugned by the petitioner in this revision.2. Opposite party claiming herself to be the legally married wife of the petitioner since 1975 and alleging ill-treatment, cruelty and desertion since 1991, filed the petition Under Section 125, Cr.P.C in 1994 claiming for monthly maintenance on the ground that she has no source of income to sustain her livelihood whereas, the petitioner being a weaver as well as a skilled carpenter has got sufficient source of income to maintain her. In his. show cause/counter petitioner admitted the relationship, but pleaded inter alia about the customary divorce and also alternately stated that opposite party voluntarily deserted him on mutual consent and therefore, she is not entitled for mainten...
Nitu Alias Sangram Keshari Baral and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1206
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioners have preferred this Criminal revision challenging illegality and propriety of the order dated 4-3-1995 in S.t. Case No. 273 of 1994 of the Court of Chief Judicial Mpgistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Cut-tack. It appears from the impugned order that on the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant, an investigation was taken up and thereafter charge sheet was filed against seven accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as some of the offences alleged were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Assistant Sessions Judge received the case on transfer as per order of the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack. In his Court an application was filed by the informant praying to summon the other persons named, in the FIR on the ground that there exists a prima facie case against them. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge heard the parties and following the ratio in the case of Bira Kishore Mohapatra v. Sundar Bhoi Bati Mundia (1990) 7...
Indian Charge Chrome Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(119)ELT12(Ori)
A. Pasayat, J.1. Direction issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Cuttack, prohibiting transmission of electricity by Indian Charge Chrome Limited ('ICCL', shortly), petitioner No. 1, to Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited ('IMFA', shortly), petitioner No. 3, and the show cause notice issued in terms of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('the Act' hereinafter) have been challenged in this writ petition.2. Sequence of facts leading to filing of present writ petition is as hereunder:A letter of intent was issued by Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, permitting IMFA to set up a 100% Export Oriented Unit ('EOU' for short). Said letter of intent related to manufacture of 50,000 MTPY of High Carbon Ferro Chrome/Charge Chrome at Talcher. The first letter of intent is dated 13-5-1981. Subsequently, another letter of intent dated 22-10-1982 was issued and direction was given to surrender the first letter of intent. The second letter of in...
Narayan Ojha and ors. Vs. Debesh Prasad Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ori111; 87(1999)CLT381
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed O.S. No. 303/89 for declaration of right, title and interest over 'B' Schedule land; for further declaration that defendants 7 to 15 have not acquired any right, title and interest and possession over the scheduled land by virtue of the sale deeds executed by defendants 1 to 6 in their favour and for recovery of possession. When the suit was ready and about to be taken up for adducing evidence, a petition for amendment of the written statement was filed. In the petition for amendment, defendants 7 to 9 sought to add two sub-paragraphs to paragraphs 14 and 19 of the written statement. The said petition for amendment having been rejected by the trial Court, the present revision has been filed by the defendants.2. In order to appreciate the disputed questions, it is necessary to extract the proposed amendments sought to be incorporated :--'(i) That in para-14 of the original written statement the following may be added :-- It is t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›