Orissa Court March 2001 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.
Om Prakash Agarwala Vs. Berhampur Municipality
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 92(2001)CLT84
P.K. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for transfer of T. S. No. 29 of 1984 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur, to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering from chronic heart ailment since 1981 and is not in a position to travel to Berhampur and take steps to defend the suit. It is submitted that it would be convenient for him if the case is transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khudra. Such application has been resisted by the opposite party and it has been submitted by the counsel for the opposite party that it would cause much inconvenience to the Municipality to prosecute its suit at Khurda.2. It is no doubt true that depending upon the mutual convenience of the parties, a suit can be transferred from one court to another. However, while considering the convenience of one party, the other party should not be put to inconvenience.It is obvious that many official...
Lal Saheba Podh Vs. Janaki Podh and Another
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 92(2001)CLT50
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendant No. 3 has filed this Civil Revision against the concurrent orders passed by the courts below refusing to set aside an ex parte decree passed against the defendants in a suit for title and confirmation of possession/ recovery of possession filed by present opposite party No. 1 and two others.2. The suit was-posted for hearing on 24-7-19%. Even though the defendants had filed written statement, they were absent on the said date and their application for adjournment having been rejected, the suit was taken up for ex parte bearing on the same day and ultimately, the ex parte decree was passed on 3-8-1996. Subsequently, on 26-2-1997, the present petitioner and opposite party No. 2 filed art application under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that due to their illness on the date of hearing, they could not attend the court. A separate petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed wherein it was...
Safo @ Sayed Imran Alli Vs. State of Orissa, Represented Through Its S ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 91(2001)CLT731
Pradipta Ray, J.1. The writ petitioner has been detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by an order dated July 31, 2000. He has filed the writ petition challenging the said order of detention and his continued detention on several grounds,2. It is how a settled position of law that any unreasonable and unexplained delay in considering the representation of a detenu renders the order of detention and/or continuance in deletion illegal. The decisions in this regard are numerous and it is needless to refer to those decisions.3. In the present case undisputedly the detenu submitted representation to the State Government being the appropriate Government and the Central Government through the Superintendent of Jails on October 20, 2000. It appears from the affidavit affirmed by Sri Sushil Kumar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India that the petitioner's representation dated October 20, 2000 in Oriya lan...
Padmalochan Hota Vs. Haricharan Singh and Others
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: 92(2001)CLT360; 2001(I)OLR653
P.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming decision in a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The plaintiff's case is as follows :--The plaintiff had purchased Ac.0.10 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 457, Khata No. 94 in mouza Mahulpali by a registered sale deed dated 30-12-1964. Even though, the plaintiff had purchased Ac.0.10 decimals, Ac.0.12 1/2 decimals of land had been settled and the plaintiff remained in possession of the same. The plaintiff had sold a portion of the land. On the eastern side of the land a pucca house was constructed and on the western-northern side a tin shed was raised. In the year 1966 defendant No. 1 had encroached upon Ac.0.2 1/2 decimals of land on the southern side of the tin shed taking advantage of the temporary absence of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.2. The defendant in the written statement while denying the allegations made in the plaint claimed that he had purchased the house standing on Pl...
Rameswar Pradhan Vs. Surendra Naik and Others
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: 92(2001)CLT432; 2001(I)OLR655
ORDER1. Heard. 2. In this application under section 482, Cr. P. C. petitioner ventilates his grievance relating to -the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2000 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur without hearing the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that because of the Lawyers' agitation, the advocate appearing for the petitioner could not appear in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur on 22-1-2001 hence that Court 'dismissed the revision being not moved.' He thus prays that the lower revisional court be directed to hear .and dispose of the revision in accordance with law.3. Notice was issued to both the opposite party members indicating therein that this application under section 432, Cr.P.C. may be disposed of at the stage of admission. Such notice on both the opposite party, as repotted by the registry was served personally. Though the opposite party No. 1 has entered appearance and participates in the hearing but the opposite party No. 2 h...
Kangali Ch. Sahu and ors. Vs. Duryodhan Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(I)OLR657
P.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming decision. The suit was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff's case, the? disputed land measuring Ac. 0.02 decimals is a part of the plaintiffs' land and had been so recorded in the previous Record-of-Rights. However, during the Hal Settlement, erroneously a reduced area was recorded in the names of the plaintiffs and the disputed portion lying towards western side of the plaintiffs' homestead portion has been amalgamated within the defendants' land.2. The defendants in their written statement while denying the plaint allegations claimed that the disputed land is a part of their homestead. It was further pleaded that in case it is found on measurement that the disputed land was part of the plaintiffs' land, plaintiffs' right cannot be declared as the defendants had acquired title by adverse possession.3. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the findin...
Santosh Kumar Biswal and Another Vs. Sahadev Mallick
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 92(2001)CLT428; 2001(I)OLR678
ORDER1. Heard.2. In this application under section 482, Cr. P. C. petitioners pray to quash the order of cognizance in I.C.C. No. 66 of 1996 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar and to recall the order of the process so far it relates to both of them.3. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned counsel for the peti-titioners states that for the selfsame occurrence, on the basis of the F.I.R. G.R. Case No. 204 of 1996 was registered in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed, but the present petitioners were not chargesheeted as accused persons. Though attempt was made by the informant through the Additional Public Prosecutor to add the present two petitioners as accused in that G.R. Case, but that application was rejected by learned S.D.J.M. on 25-9-19%. The impugned order taking cognizance was passed on 30-4-1998. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in the order dated 30-4-1998 process was directed to be issued against the present p...
Ashok Biri and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(I)OLR586
R.K. Patra, J.1. Is the purchase of kendu leaves by the petitioners an inter-State trade or intra-State trade This is the limited question that arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. As common issue is involved in all these cases, they were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. For the sake of convenience, we have referred to the pleadings and documents of O.J.C. No. 9724 of 2000.2. The case of the petitioners briefly stated is as following :Petitioner No. 2 is one of the shareholders of petitioner No.l which is a private limited company having its registered head office at Calcutta. It carries on business in tobacco and kendu leaves. It prepares bidi with kendu leaves in the name and style of 'Ashok Bidi' at its factory situated in the State of West Bengal. The Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, opposite party No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'O.F.D.C.') is a Government of Orissa undertaking. Trade in kendu leaves in the State of Orissa b...
Sabita SwaIn and ors. Vs. the State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 92(2001)CLT101; 2001(I)OLR517
ORDER1. Can lack of budgetary - provisions stand on the way of disbursing arrear salaries of teachers, whose services have been approved and who are/were receiving salary, is the ratio of this case.2. A true democracy is one where education is universal, where people understand what is good to them and the nation, and know how to govern them-selves. The three articles i. e. Articles 45, 46 arid 41 of the Constitution of India are designed to achieve the said goal among others. It is in the light of these Articles that the content and parameters of the right to education have to be determined. Right to education, understood in the context of Articles 45 and 41 means, (a) every child/citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes the age of fourteen years, and (b) after a child/citizen completes fourteen years, his tight to education is circumscribed by the limits of the economic capacity of the State and its development. The right to education further means tha...
Smt. Hiramani SwaIn (Dead), Chaitan SwaIn and Others Vs. Ramesh Chandr ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-26-2001
Reported in: 91(2001)CLT808; 2001(I)OLR648
P.K. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing decision. The suit is for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in respect of 'Kha' Schedule property. It is not disputed that 'Kha' Schedule property is a part of 'Ka' Schedule property which originally belonged to one Gayaram Bhanj, who had two wives Khiramani and Bilasini. The plaintiff is the only daughter of Gayaram born through Khiramani. After the death of Gayaram, the two widows succeeded to the the property. Subsequently, the plain-plaintiff's mother had executed a deed of gift in respect of her half share of the property in favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the step-mother also donated her share by oral gift and the plaintiff thus became the owner of the entire 'Ka' Schedule property. On 14-6-1945, Sidheswar Senapati, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 1 to 6, managed to obtain a registered sale deed from Bilasini even though the contents of the document ha...