Court : Orissa
Reported in : 95(2003)CLT261
ORDERR. K. Patra, J. 1. Heard Shri Udgata for the Petitioners and the learned AdditionalGovernment Advocate for the opposite parties.2. On 21.1.2001 Maruti Van bearing registration number Or-05-D-2600 was intercepted by the Forest Officials at Padampur Chhak. It was found that the vehicle was carrying hand-sawn sizes of Piasal, Gambhar and Asan (38 pieces i.e. 20.94 cft). The driver of the vehicle was arrested along with the timber. Confiscation proceeding was taken up by the Authorised Officer who after giving due opportunity to all concerned passed an order on 14.9.2001 directing confiscation of the vehicle. He held that there was illegal transportation of timber without any valid document which is in violation of Rules, 4, 5 and 12 of the O.T.T. Rules, 1980. He also held that the involvement of the driver of commission of the forest offence has been proved. Considering the statements of the owner of the vehicle and others, he held that it cannot be ruled out that the forest offence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 94(2002)CLT792
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. Defendants 1, 2, 4, 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 5(ka), 5(kha), 8, 11 and 13 are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 194 of 1986and rest of the defendants are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 234 of 1986. Both the appeals have been filed against a reversing judgment.2. The suit out of which these appeals arise was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants have no right, title, interest or possession over the same except to realise rent from the plaintiff, for confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from, interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.3. The respondent No. 1 who is the plaintiff pleaded that the suit schedule property is a residential Gharbari land with a well therein which originally belonged to the recorded tenant Sadhabi Bewa, widow of Ram Swain who was occupying the same as a Darpattadar under Khata No. 898 belonging to the Pattadar, Raghunath...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(I)OLR41
Pradip Mohanty, J. 1. The defendant is in appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 25.1.1986 of the Additional District Judge, Berhamur, in T.A. No. 21 of 1985 (18/1985 GDC) who by reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Aska, has decreed the suit. 2. At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed : '(i) Whether in view of the amendment to the Orissa Money Lenders' Act in the year 1975 by Act 54 of 1975 and the transactions held, it can be said that the plaintiff is a money lender for the suit not being maintainable under the Orissa Money Lenders' Act (ii) Whether the question of limitation can be gone into when no issue to that effect has been raised that there is an assertion in the written statement ?'. 3. Plaintiffs case briefly stated is that she is not a regular money lender. The defendant took loan of Rs. 3,000/- from her by executing a simple mortgage bond on 12.5.1973. The plaintiff also agreed to pay a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(1)ALT(Cri)18; 2002(II)OLR537
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. This Is a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By an order dated 3.10.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Balasore under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') the petitioner was detained in the District Jail, Balasore. The grounds for such detention were communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 7.10.2001 of the District Magistrate, Balasore. The State Government thereafter approved the order of detention by its order dated 11.10.2001. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board under the Act by the State Government and after submission of the report of the Advisory Board, the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government by its order dated 15.11.2001. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 9.11.2001 against the order of detention before the Advisory Board, but the said representation was rejected b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : I(2003)ACC12; 2004ACJ382; 2003(I)OLR86
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the insurer, challenging the judgment and award passed in M.A.C. No. 281 of 1993 (79 of 1993) by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (SD), Berhampur. The sole grievance of insurance company is that the offending Canter bus bearing registration No. OR 07-7808 of which respondent No. 2 was the owner, did not possess a route permit to travel on the route on which it was proceeding. It is submitted by Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that in the absence of a valid route permit, which is a condition of the insurance policy, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation amount.2. Admittedly on 15.1.1993 the offending vehicle caused the accident, as a result of which, the claimant and other occupants of the vehicle sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, claimant filed a claim case demanding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. Learned Clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR485
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant No. 2 is the appellant before this Court against a reversing judgment so far as part of the relief sought for by the plaintiff is concerned.Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the suit for declaration of title/possessory title, confirmation of possession over the suit land and for permanent injunction.2. Case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is that the suit land was originally a fallow land of Banki Khasmahal which was acquired by defendant No. 1 Jadunath Mohapatra under an agreement between Tahasildar, Banki and on the strength of such agreement pending formal grant of lease the defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of the said land by the Tahasildar on payment of certain sum in lieu of rent and possession was delivered to him. Defendant No. 1 constructed a small house thereon and carried on business in the name and style 'Hataghar'. Though the defendant No. 1 had not been granted formal lease in respect of the suit land he possessed the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR599
P.K. Misra, J.1. This appeal assails the order dated 09.04.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, passed in Sessions Trial No. 51.1 of 1995, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively; the sentences to run concurrently.2. The brief narration of the prosecution case is as follows:In the afternoon of 06.05.1995, the appellant dealt a Bhujali blow on Diptikant Behera (P.W. 1) a boy aged 12 years, while the latter along with others was attending to tuition imparted by Chandra Sekhar Naik (P.W.5) on the verandah of one Babaji Charan Swain. On seeing the attack on P.W. 1 the teacher (P.W.5) caught hold of the appellant, whereupon the appellant bit his cheek and pushed him, as a result of which, apart from sustaining bleeding injury, P.W.5 became unconscious and was shifted to Mahanga P.H.C. for treatment. Thereafter, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 95(2003)CLT242
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. They had filed the suit for declaration of right, title, and possession over the suit lands which includes a tank and for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the said tank. Learned Sub-Judge, Aska decreed the suit in part and possession of the plaintiffs was declared only for the limited purpose of irrigation and prayer for declaration of title and permanent injunction were refused. Appeal filed by the plaintiffs before the learned Additional District Judge, Ganjam was partly allowed and title of the plaintiffs over a portion of the suit tank appertaining to Survey Nos. 9/103 of Asinapur and Survey Nos. 1023, 1022/2, 1022/3 and 1020 of Sunapalli was declared. However, claim of the plaintiffs over Survey No. 30 was not allowed. Challenging that portion of the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court the plaintiffs have f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1050; I(2003)DMC25; 2002(II)OLR476
P.K. Mohanty, J. 1. This is an application for grant of bail to the petitioner in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the charge-sheet having not been filed within sixty days of the date of detention.2. The petitioner earlier had moved this Court for bail under Section 439, Cr. P.C. but on his prayer, the bail application was permitted to be withdrawn. The police having failed to file charge-sheet within sixty days of the detention, the petitioner moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge for grant of bail in terms of Section 167(2), Cr. P.C., but the application having been rejected, this petition.3. Shri B. S. Mishra, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 17-5-2002 for allegedly having committed offences punishable under Section 498-A/307/34, IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and he was remanded to custody and was continuing as such. An application was moved before the learned Additional ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2004]135TAXMAN514(Orissa)
ORDERR.K. Patra, J.This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made at the instance of the assessee. The question of law referred is as follows .-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the refusal of registration to the assessee-firm under section 185(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment year 1985-86 is justified and valid in law ?'2. The assessment year is 1985-86. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessment-firm') consisted of four partners and was assessed in the status of registered firm up to and including the assessment year 1984-85. There was a change in the constitution of the firm with effect from 1-4-1984 following retirement of two partners and admission of one Smt. E. Babirani Patra in place of her husband (E. Arun Kumar Patra a retired partner) as a partner. The firm consisting of three partners applied for registration in Form No. 11-A along with the deed of partnership. The assessing officer for the purpose of c...
Tag this Judgment!