Orissa Court June 2000 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Santosh Kumar Mund
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ori3
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. M. A. No. 714 of 1997 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal in O.A. No. 200 of 1991 and M.A. No. 715 of 1997 has been filed against the order passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal in O.A. No. 201 of 1991. Since both the appeals are interlinked, same were heard together. 2. In O.A. No. 200/91 (M.A. No. 714/97) the respondent claimed Rs. 82,100/- towards compensation for the price of 507 pieces of sized Haldu, Bija and Sal timber on the allegations that the consignment of the above quantity of timber was booked from Rupra-Road Railway Station for delivery at Simanchalam Railway Station. Since goods did not reach the destination station within a reasonable time the respondent went away to his native place and only after receipt of notice that the goods had arrived on 21-6-1990, he went to take delivery of the goods and found that the goods offered by the railway did not belong to him. Therefore, he refused to accept the same. Ulti...
Tag this Judgment!Suryamani Mohanty and ors. Vs. Secretary to Government of Orissa, Panc ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR177
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard.Some of the villagers of village Prathamakhandi have filed this writ application challenging the orders passed under Annexures 6 and 7 relating to bifurcation of Prathamakhandi village and creation of a new village to be known as Gopalpur. Since the matter was pending in High Court, the State Government has issued a direction to the Settlement Officer under Annexure-l0 not to proceed with the matter till finalisation of the writ application in the High Court.2. Rule 61 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules which contemplates the procedure relating to declaration of villages is quoted hereunder:'61. Procedure for declaration of villages - (1) Where proceedings in pursuance of an order made under Sections 11, 18 or 36 are in progress, the Settlement Officer may, if he deems fit, start proceedings for effecting changes in the boundaries of an existing village or for constitution of a new village :Provided that when a portion of the village has been declared...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Badani Kumari Patra and anr. Vs. Purna Chandra Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR262
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed this application for recalling the order dated 15.2.2000 in Second Appeal No. 362 of 1999 admitting the appeal after hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the 'C.P.C.'). The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 contended that the respondents had filed a Caveat petition on 17.1.2000 and sent notice thereof to the appellants by registered post and the appellants refused to accept such notice. Learned counsel contends that since copy of the appeal memo was not served, the Caveators did not have any opportunity of being heard before the appeal was admitted and the order admitting the appeal should be recalled and the matter should be taken up afresh for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, CPC in their presence.2. Section 148A of the C.P.C. contemplates the right of a party to file caveat. The provisions are quoted hereunder for convenience :'148-A. Right to lodge a caveat - (1) Where an application is expected...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilata Pattanaik Vs. London Baptist Mission Corporation and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR231
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The defendant has filed this application challenging the order of the appellate Court refusing to set aside the ex parte order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul, The opposite parties had filed the suit for eviction. Even though the defendant had entered appearance, written statement was not filed and the suit was decreed in accordance with order 8, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 read with Order 8, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the 'C.P.C'). The present petitioner had filed an application to recall the said order. However, the trial Court having rejected such petition, Misc. Appeal was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Angul,.who confirmed the order of the trial Court. Hence, the present Civil Revision.2. The appellate Court has observed that since the disposal of the application was in accordance with Order 8, Rule 5(2) and Order 8, Rule 10, C.P.C. the petition under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C., was not maintainable. The provision...
Tag this Judgment!P. Simadri Alias Reddy Vs. Giridhari Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1957; 2000(II)OLR144
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. This application under Section 482. Cr.P.C. is filed by P. Simadri alias Reddy, one of the accused persons in I.C.C. Case No. 59 of 1996 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Berhampur with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance dated 10.8.1998. The complainant is opposite party in this case. The three other co-accused persons have not been added as party to this proceeding.2. The undisputed fact is that the opposite party filed a complaint, which was registered as I.C.C.Case No. 59 of 1996, in which he alleged regarding forcible entry and removal of some quantity of mangoes from Survey Nos. 1197 and 1198 of holding Nos. 404/142 and 404/122 in village Tarinipentha measuring an area of Ac. 0.785 decimals having 80 mango trees. Complainant alleged that on 7.5.1996 at 5 p.m. the accused persons trespassed into the said land and committed theft of two quintals of mango and when protested by the wife of Parsu Pradhan they abused and threatened her to kill. The complainant alleged...
Tag this Judgment!Bidyadhar Chadei Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3977
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Order dated 16-11-1996 in S.T. Case No. 6/50 of 1996 of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandapur is under challenge in this revision.2. The aforesaid sessions case was registered as against opposite party No. 2-Tutu Swain, allegedly for kidnapping the victim girl and committing rape on her on 17th November, 1995 in the Tea stall of the petitioner. The victim girl is partially mentally retarded and also partially handicapped because of no having capability to speak clearly and fluently which in the vernacular and coloquial term in Orissa has been termed as 'Jadi.' After she was ravished, the blind father and the helpless mother of the victim sought for the intervention of the villagers which, as alleged, resulted in a decision in the Village Panchayat for marriage of the victim with opposite party No. 2. That marriage was performed but the father of the opposite party No. 2, as alleged, declined to accept the victim as the daughter-in-law. That resulted ...
Tag this Judgment!Chittaranjan Parida Vs. Executive Magistrate, Cuttack and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1899
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioner got initiated Criminal Misc. Case No. 1199 of 1997, a proceeding Under Section 144, Cr. P.C., in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Cuttack with respect to a small fraction of Plot No. 212 of Khata No. 45 totally measuring Ac. 0.38 situated at Matagajapur in the township of Cuttack under Cuttack Sadar Police Station. In the application Under Section 144, Cr. P.C., petitioner alleged that the second party/opposite party No. 2, who is the owner and in possession of the adjoining plot No. 213 had started digging a pit after encroaching upon 3 feet of land from the disputed case land so as to construct a Barpali latrine on it. He filed the application before the Executive Magistrate on 3-12-97 along with the prayer to issue interim ex parte prohibitory order. Learned Executive Magistrate allowed the said application and while issuing notice to show-cause also issued ex parte prohibitory order preventing any construction over the case land by the second p...
Tag this Judgment!Bishikeshan Nag Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR170
R.K. Patra, J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted underSection 394, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years. The sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as emerged from the evidence on record is as follows : Prasanna Kumar Mishra (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') at the material time was working as Sub-Divisional Officer, Lift Irrigation, Loisingha. The appellant was working as a cook in his house. In the intervening night of 23rd and 24th of March, 1991 the appellant committed murder of the deceased by assaulting him with an iron pestle. Valuables like gold and silver ornaments and cash of about Rs. 80,000/- were missing from the house of the deceased which were recovered later from the house of the appellant's sister. The appellant himself led to recovery of the weapon of offence (iron pestle).3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and denied his complicity. 4. In ord...
Tag this Judgment!Bansidhar Rana and ors. Vs. Minati Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR360
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Petition has been filed by the appellants under Section 4(4) of Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, which has been numbered as Misc. Case No. 46 of 2000. The other two Misc. Cases filed by the parties seek for interim directions.2. The defendants have filed this appeal. Plaintiff-respondent had filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of homestead Plot No. 1949 measuring Ac.0.16 decimals on the allegation that on the death of plaintiff's uncle, Banchhu, in the year 1988 in jointness with plaintiff's father, the property devolved on the plaintiff's father by survivorship. It was claimed that defendant No. 2 was not the widow of Banchhu and even assuming that she was his widow, she had illegally sold half of the disputed land to defendant No.3 Subsequently, she had married one Ratnakar Rana and defendant No. 1 is her son through Ratnakar Rana. Defendant No.3 subsequently sold the specified half of the dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Jshna Kanhar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC77; 2001ACJ871; AIR2000Ori147
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The Union of India has filed this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal Bhubaneswar Bench, direction payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent.2. The husband of the claimant-respondent was a defence personnel belonging to Bihar Regiment. The deceased while travelling on 1-4-1995 by Jammu Tavi Sialdah Express fell down from the train at a place between Andal and Bhakat Nagar Railway station and died. The claim application was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal at Calcutta. Subsequently, the same was transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench.3. The present appellant in its written statement without taking any specific stand called upon the claimant to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the claimant was the widow of the deceased.4. The Railway Claims Tribunal found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and had l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »