Orissa Court July 1999 Judgments
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Vs. Prabhat Kumar Dhal ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC5; 88(1999)CLT544; (2000)IIILLJ1452Ori
R.K. Dash, J.1. The aforesaid 3 appeals by the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurer') are directed against the common order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Orissa, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in W.C. Case Nos. 37, 39 and 85 of 1994. By the aforesaid order the Commissioner determined the compensation to be paid to the applicants in the aforesaid three cases (hereinafter referred to as claimants). Since the question of law involved in these 3 appeals are similar, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Facts giving rise to initiation of the aforesaid claim cases may briefly be stated thus: On January 11, 1994 a truck bearing registration No. OSU-7056 being driven by Prakash Chandra Biswal, one of the claimants, met with an accident near Bidanesi New Colony, Cuttack, as a result, he and two labourers, namely, Bimal ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jeebanamayee Patnaik Vs. Smt. Padmabati Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 89(2000)CLT243; 1999(II)OLR276
P.K. Misra, J.1. All these Civil Revisions have been filed by the plaintiff. Since the orders impugned are inter-linked, all the Civil Revisions are taken up together and being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The counsel for the petitioner is absent. The counsel for opposite party is present. Since revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised suo motu, even though the counsel for the petitioner is absent, I think it proper to dispose of the Civil Revision on merit, as after going trough the orders. I find that the orders cannot be sustained.3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction on the allegation that she is a tenant under the opposite party and she apprehends that she may be forcibly evicted from the disputed house without taking recourse to procedure established by law. The defendant in written statement has denied the allegation in the plaint and has filed a counter-claim seeking for recovery of possession of the disputed house on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhu Charan Mohanty Vs. Prafulla Chandra Mishra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 88(1999)CLT628; 1999(II)OLR199
R.K. Dash, J.1. The order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Jajpur passed in Title Appeal No. 20 of 1991 allowing the plaintiff's prayer for amendment of the plaint has been assailed in this revision.2. The facts necessary for determining the question involved in the revision may be briefly stated thus : Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 221 of 1988 in the Court of Munsif, Jajpur for permanent as well as mandatory injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit land having an area of Ac. 0.15 dec. out of plot No. 131 under Khata No. 12 of mouza Bhagabatpur. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the aforesaid land by a registered sale deed dated 10.2.1988 on payment of consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. Defendant in the written statement claiming to be the earlier purchaser of Ac. 0.08 dec. from the very same suit land claimed title to it and accordingly urged that the plaintiff's simple suit for injunction is not maintainable in absence of prayer for declaration of title and rec...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Siya Devi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ411Ori; 1999(II)OLR329
P.K. Misra, J.1. The Insurer has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Addl. District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner') in W.C. Case No. 19 of 1994. 2. The claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Manmohan Ray who was alleged to be working as a driver under present respondent No. 7 in respect of Truck bearing number OSU 5529. It was stated that the said driver sustained severe bodily injuries on May 25, 1994 on account of an accident arising out of and in course of employment. The injuries resulted in death soon after the accident. 3. The owner of the truck filed written statement admitting the fact of accident and employment of the deceased as driver, but stated that the deceased was not getting Rs. 1500/- but was getting Rs. 1200/- per month towards salary. It was further pleaded that th...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopal Ch. Das and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: I(2001)ACC59; 90(2000)CLT667; ILR2001NULL59
P.K. Misra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. The claimant-respondents have entered appearance. The Counsel for claimant-respondents submitted that the appeal may not be maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1997 (2) TAC 1 (SC) : I (1997) ACC 341 (SC) Narendra Kumar and Anr. v. Yarenissa and Ors. and 1998 (2) TAC 379 (SC) : I (1999) ACC 347 (SC) Shankarayya and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellant is not challenging the quantum itself, it is challenging the wrong basis adopted by the Tribunal. He has further submitted that the matter may be entertained and disposed of after issuance of notice to owner-respondent No. 1.2. Learned Counsel for claimant-respondents submitted that in case the appeal is entertained and notice is issued to respondent No. 1, the disp...
Tag this Judgment!Super Sales Corporation Vs. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhuban ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ori54
R.K. Patra, J. 1. Can postal authorities refuse to deliver postal articles transmitted to the addressee on the plea that they doubt the bona fides of the addressee This is the short question that arises for consideration in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner-Messrs Super Sales Corporation's case is that it is a commercial establishment represented through its Chief Executive Vishal Dhawan. It is a company which deals with automobile and householdelectrical appliances. Initially it was functioning at the 315, Kharavelanagar, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar-1. Subsequently it shifted its office to plot No. 125, Sector-A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-10. Plot No. 125 on which the petitioner is now functioning was allotted to one Messers Vishal Engineering by the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa. The petitioner has been occupying the said plot as a tenant of Messrs Vishal Engineering. The proprietor of Messrs Vishal Engi...
Tag this Judgment!Pranabandhu Institute of Paramedical Science and Technology Vs. State ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ori221; 88(1999)CLT502
D.M. Patnaik, J. 1. The Pranabandhu Institute of Para Medical Science and Technology through its Director Dr. S.C. Das is aggrieved by the inaction of the All India Council for Technical Education (opp. party no. 3) and the Pharmacy Council of India (opp. party no. 4) for not approving the pharmacy course of the institution for the session 1996-97 as per Government refusal intimation dated 27-11 -96 (Annex. 13).2. Petitioner's case is, it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act its aim being, to promote the technical education in the field of pharmacy, to meet the need of the society as well as for creating potentiality for self-employment. The institute is named after a well known freedom fighter Late Pranabandhu the father of its Director Dr. S.C. Das. It applied to the State Government for permission in the year 1993 and the Government after getting the institution inspected by the D.M.E.T. and Dr. Mrs. Manorama Das and being satisfied that all the infrastructur...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Rama Mishra Vs. Sri Ram City Union Finance Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 88(1999)CLT232; 1999(II)OLR194
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. The present revision is by the plaintiff before the lower Court praying for a mandatory injunction to restore possession of her Ashok Leyland Bus bearing Registration No. OR-05 F-7677 seized by the defendant-opp. party, a private financing company. The lower Court by order-dated 3.2.1999 in Misc. Case No. 23 of 1999 allowed the prayer of the plaintiff directing her to repay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the outstanding instalments to the opp. party within a period of 15 days and to repay the balance outstanding dues in two equal instalments in the month of April and June, 1 999 along with usual instalments regularly as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The defendant-opp. party was directed to deliver the vehicle to the petitioner soon after receipt of the amount of rupees one lakh. This was challenged by the company in M.A.No. 10 of 1999 before the District Judge, Khurda. The appeal was allowed and the order of the lower Court was set aside.Aggrieved b...
Tag this Judgment!Surojit Sen and Sanjaya Singh Vs. Sanatan Behera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(II)OLR361
P.K. Misra, J.1. ICC Case No. 21 of 1995 has been filed against the two petitioners alleging commission of offences under Sections 294, 385, 394/34, Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant had purchased a vehicle on the basis of hire purchase agreement from Kalinga Auto Centre Ltd., Cuttack, of which Surojit Sen (petitioner in Cr. Misc. Case No. 882/96) is the Managing Director. It is further alleged that though the complainant had repaid a sum of Rs. 4,16,000/- and odd, the two petitioners forcibly took away the vehicle. The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 987 of 1996, who is a driver, had filed an application under Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure, (in short, the 'Cr.P.C') through his lawyer, but without passing any order on the said application, N.B.W. has been issued against him. The other petitioner after receiving summons had also filed an application under Section 205, Cr.P.C, but without dealing with the same, the Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Guji Dharma Rao Alias Raju and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(II)OLR371
P.K. Misra, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code (in short, the 'I.P.C.'), and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The two appellants are brothers. Deceased is the son of the informant (P.W.1). It is alleged that on 13.4.1994, the deceased had gone to a liquor shop at about 9.30 A.M. At that time both the accused persons came together and shouted that they were searching for the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased was assaulted by the two accused persons and ultimately died on account of the injury caused due to assault by a stone. The aforesaid incident was seen by P.W.3, who was working in the liquor shop and others. P.W. 3 informed P.W.I about the incident and ultimately both of them went to Ichhapur Police Station and orally reported about the incident. The police came to the place of occurrence and opined that the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Golanthara Police Station. Ultimately, a written report was lodg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »