Orissa Court March 2000 Judgments
Gopal Patra and ors. Vs. Loknath Patra and After Him Bidulata Patra an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(I)OLR590
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants against the reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur in a suit for declaration.2. The short facts of the plaintiffs-appellants' case are that they filed a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and alternatively for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule land. It is their case that the suit land was acquired by Nidhi Patra, father of plaint Nos. 1 and 2 by way of purchase from joint family, funds. Nidhi Patra sold away the suit land in favour of defendant No. 2 by a sale deed on 9.10.1968 illegally, without consideration and was an outcome of collusion of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with Nidhi Patra. According to the plaintiffs, they possessed the suit land continuously without any interruption till date and even if such sale deed exists, defendant No. 2 never possessed the suit land and the plaintiffs- appellants possessed the same without any interruption from any side. The said land was s...
Tag this Judgment!Dinabandhu Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 90(2000)CLT62; 2000CriLJ4912
P.K. Misra, J.1. The appellants Dinabandhu Sahu and Nabakishore Das alias Behera, both of village Charchika, P. S. Banki in the District of Cuttack, have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) by order dated 23-2-1991 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.R. No. 258 of 1990. They have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, under Sections 326/34, IPC. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence has been passed on finding the appellants guilty of committing murder of one Gagan Behari Misra alias Babula and causing grievous hurt to Binayak Misra (P.W. 9).2. Prosecution case, as revealed from the evidence of P.W. 9 is that deceased Gagan Behari Misra, Binayak Misra (P.W. 9). Soumendra Kumar Misra (P.W. 1), Satyasri Misra (P.W. 2), Suv...
Tag this Judgment!Bichitrananda SwaIn and ors. Vs. Jatakrushna Swain
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ori145; 2000(I)OLR548
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiffs have filed this revision. During pendency of the suit, an order of injunction had been issued directing the present opposite party not to carry on further construction of the house encroaching the suit land. An application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C., was filed by the present petitioners alleging that in spite of the order of injunction, the opposite party proceeded to complete the construction which had been made upto lintel level at the time when injunction order was passed. The trial Court found that the construction was completed in spite of the order of injunction and accordingly directed that the opposite party would remain under civil imprisonment for a period of two months. The present opposite party filed an appeal which has been allowed and the order imposing punishment has been vacated, mainly on the ground that the Commissioner who had visited the place was not a Survey-knowing Commissioner. 2. The question as to whether the disputed s...
Tag this Judgment!Debaraj Panda Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(I)OLR621
P.K. Misra, J.1. The owner has filed this appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal.2. The only question raised relates to inter se liability of the owner vis-a-vis that of the Insurance Company. The deceased was the owner of goods travelling in a goods vehicle. Accident occurred on 4.5.1992. The Claims Tribunal while awarding compensation to the legal representatives observed that the amount should be paid by the owner following the decision of this Court reported in 81 (1996) CLT 580 (The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack Divisional Office v. Jasoda Mohanta and Ors.). In the aforesaid decision while interpreting the provisions contained in Section 95(1 )(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it had been opined that the Insurance Company is not required under the Act to cover the liability in respect of owner of goods accompanying his goods in a goods vehicle. In fact, while interpreting the provisions of the old Act similar view has been subsequently expres...
Tag this Judgment!Baikunthanath Barik (Dead) After Him Hemalata Barik and ors. Vs. Nilam ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 90(2000)CLT549; 2000(I)OLR550
P.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs have filed this appeal against the decision of the trial Court dismissing their suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction.2. From the undisputed genealogy it appears that one Sadhu Barik had three sons. The three defendants represent the branch of eldest son Sibanath; plaintiffs 1 to 6 represent the branch of the second-son Jayi and plaintiff Mo. 7 Kamala, being the daughter represents the branch of third son Ninuha. The plaintiffs claim right on the basis of their adverse possession. Plaintiff No.l claims Lot No.I; plaintiffs 2 to 5 claim Lot No. II; plaintiff No. 6 claims Lot No. III and plaintiff No. 7 claims Lot No. IV in Schedule-A. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have been in forcible possession of the disputed land separately as indicated above even during the life time of Sibanath, the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants. It is claimed that...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Dehury Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)20; 2000(I)OLR561
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The appellant has been convicted Under Section 302, IPC for committing the murder of his wife and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution is that on a Thursday morning, the appellant came to the house of his brother Mangulu Dehuri and disclosed before his mother, brother, children and one Bhima Patra that in the previous night he killed his wife. He handed over the key of his house to his mother and requested her to take care of the children. The mother and the brother of the appellant and Bhima Patra came to the house of the appellant, opened the lock and found the deceased lying dead inside the house in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on her person. They further found blood on the ground in front of the house and two sticks lying nearby. Thereafter Bhima Patra went to the Police station and lodged the report and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant.3. The plea of the appellant is denial of th...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Mallick Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(I)OLR564
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The appellant has been convicted Under Section 302. IPC committing murder of his wife Neelabati Mallick and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case is that on 24.2.1993 at about 10 a.m. the appellant picked up quarrel with his wife Neelabati in their house in course of which he inflicted blows on the head of Neelabati. as a result of which she fell down and died. On the same day Kubera Mallik who is The brother of the appellant informed about the said incident to the Grama Rakshi, P.W.I before whom the appellant confessed his guilt. Thereafter the appellant was taken to Phiringia Police station, and FIR was lodged.3. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 1. Grama Rakshi is the informant. P.W.2 is the eye- witness to the occurrence. P.Ws. 3 to 6 are seizure witnesses. P.W.7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer.4. The plea of the accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkishore Mishra and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)21; II(2000)DMC375
P.K. Patra, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the J.M.F.C., Anandapur in G.R. Case No. 255/92 as also to quash the proceedings in the said G.R. Case.2. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M.M. Sahu, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, as also the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State were heard at length.3. Petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 married opposite party No. 2 about eight years back. Due to dispute and misunderstanding between them, opposite party No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioners and G.R. Case No. 255/92 under Section 498A, I.P.C. was registered against them. Petitioner No. 1 filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act against opposite party No. 2 for dissolution of their marriage and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmirani Behera Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR151]; (2001)ILLJ269Ori
P.K. Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the widow of late Haris Chandra Behera. The only question raised in this appeal is as to whether the direction of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to pay a portion of the awarded amount to present respondent No. 2 is sustainable in law. There is no dispute that the present appellant is the wife of the deceased-Haris Chandra Behera and respondent No. 3 is the mother. Similarly, there is no dispute that respondents 4 to 8 are the children of the deceased through the present respondent No. 2.2. The only question is relating to the status of respondent No. 3. It has been found that respondent No. 2 was the concubine of the deceased and respondents No. 4 to 8 were born through her. Section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides as follows:'2, Definitions: (1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, (a) to (c) xx xx xx xx xx (d) 'dependent' means any of the following relatives of a deceased...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanu Bhola and ors. Vs. Sindhu Bhuyan (Dead) After Him Prafulla Kumar ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(I)OLR616
P.K. Misra, J.1. Legal representatives of the original defendant No. 1 have filed this appeal against a confirming decision.2. Suit was filed for eviction of defendants. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the property from the previous owner and had allowed defendant No. 1, Ankura Swain, to occupy the house on monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. Subsequently, notice was issued terminating the tenancy but defendant No. l refused to accept the notice. Hence, suit was filed seeking for a direction to the defendants to vacate the disputed house and to restore possession to the plaintiff.3. The defendants in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and claimed that the plaintiff had not acquired any title by virtue of the sale deed. They also denied about the alleged relationship of landlord and tenants.4. The trial Court, inter alia, held on the basis of oral evidence that defendant No. l had been inducted as a tenant and had refused to accept the notice terminating...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »