Orissa Court June 2003 Judgments
Bisandayal and Sons and anr. Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ori40; III(2004)BC403; 2003(II)OLR310
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. United Bank of India, Nayasarak Branch, Cuttack, on 19-4-1977 presented the plaint and instituted Title Mortgage Suit No. 102 of 1977 against the petitioners as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as the other defendants, and claimed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,61,380/- (two lakhs sixty one thousand three hundred and eighty only) with pendente lite and future interest and cost, and in that respect, if necessary, to sell the mortgaged property covered by the Schedule 'A' and 'B' of the plaint on the ground of liability of the defendants on the basis of the cash credit facility and overdraft facility provided in course of the transactions. In their separate written statement including the additional written statement petitioners as well as defendant No. 4/opp. party No. 2, inter alia, have challenged to the extent of their liability and the mode of calculation. Issues have been framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties in which le...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Chandra Rath and ors. Vs. Dr. Dhruba Charan Pattnaik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT296
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioners in the above noted Civil Revisions and the Transfer Petition are the respondents Nos. 5,6 & 7 in R.F.A. No. 13 of 2003 which was filed in the Court of District Judge, Cuttack, and after being transferred on 2.4.2003 the same is now subjudice in the Court of 2nd Addl. District Judge, Cuttack. Appellant in the appeal is the opposite party No. 1. The other co-respondents of the petitioners are the opposite parties 2 to 5. All the aforesaid petitioners and the opposite parties were parties to the Civil Proceeding registered as Title Suit No. 208/13 of 2002-1998 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack. Opposite party No. 1 as the plaintiff had filed that suit. The nature of the dispute and the relief claimed in the suit are not relevant and therefore not noted in this judgment. All the above noted cases having been heard analogously and this common judgment shall abide the result in all such cases.2. The above noted suit was disposed of...
Tag this Judgment!Anirudha Mishra Vs. Dr. Sujata Acharya
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ori1; 2003(II)OLR181
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. The prayer of the opposite party under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for payment of interim maintenance having been allowed at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month and further prayer of the opposite party for litigation expenses having been allowed to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-, the present petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order 12-5-2003 passed by the revisional Court.2. It appears that a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the present petitioner for divorce which is pending consideration in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar. In that suit an application was filed by the present opposite party under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. The opposite party filed the application on the ground that the petitioner ill-treated her due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand a...
Tag this Judgment!Bauribandhu Mohanty Vs. Raghunath Panigrahi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ori215; 2003(II)OLR199
B. Panigrahi, J.1. Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 29 of 1979 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur has filed this appeal against the reversing judgment and decree passed by the appellate 'Court by which his suit for declaration of title, confirmation and/or recovery of possession and for permanent injunction was dismissed.2. It is alleged in the plaint that the suit property once belonged to Bhimsen Panigrahi, who sold the same to one Kisanlal Sharma for consideration. Thereafter the vendee Kishanlal Sharma was in possession of the suit land in his own right and got it mutated in his name. Kishanlal Sharma left Rairakhol in the year 1954 and before his departure he orally transferred the suit land to the plaintiff for which he claimed to have been in possession of the suit land since 1954 onwards and had mutated the land in his favour. It has been further alleged that the plaintiff constructed a house over a portion of the suit land and has been living therein. The defendants havin...
Tag this Judgment!Dhruba Charan Parida Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ori219; 2003(II)OLR281
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 68 of 2000 is the petitioner as against the order of temporary injunction refused in his favour by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Salipur in Misc. Case No. 114 of 2000 and the confirming order passed on 23-7-2002 by the Fast Track Court No. 2, Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2001.2. The simple case of the plaintiff is that on 12-7-1982 he executed a gift-deed in favour of the Block Development Officer, Salipur gifting away Ac. 0.06 decimals of land from plot No. 553 of Khata No. 153 and Chaka No. 8 situated in Mouza Dhanuapada measuring total area of Ac. 0.279 decimals. He gifted that property in public interest to facilitate the Government to construct a road to connect the village road with the public road. Defendant No. 4 is the Contractor to execute the work and the State Government officers, i.e., Collector, B.D.O. and Tahasildar are the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Grievance of the plaintiff is that notwithstanding his generos...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Charan Naik and anr. Vs. Kasinath Nayak (Died) by His L. Rs. and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ori70
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. For the reasons indicated below, the Second Appeal is bound to fail and consequently dismissed.2. The following substantial question of law was formulated on 1-8-1989 when the Second Appeal was admitted.'The only substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is, whether the learned Courts below were correct in recording their findings solely on the basis of the report of the Civil Court Commissioner without taking into consideration the other evidence available on records.'3. It be noted at this Juncture that in the appeal memo appellants have raised three other substantial questions of law challenging to the acceptability of the report of the Civil Court Commissioner but such grounds were not accepted by this Court to be relevant substantial questions to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal.4. Judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Bhubaneswar (Civil Judge, Junior Division) on 11th May, 1984 in O. S. No. 49 of 197...
Tag this Judgment!Biswakesha Mohapatra Vs. Authorised Officer
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(II)OLR530
ORDER1. Heard Mr. J. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Routray, learned Addl. Govt Advocate, for the State.2. Petitioner's case is that he is the owner of an Ambassador car bearing registration No.WNC-6620. The said car was seized on 18.7.2002 at 6.30 a.m. on the allegation that it was carrying sawn Sal sizes of 32 nos. equivalent to 9.04 Ctf. illegally. U.D. Case No. 6 of 2002-2003 was registered at Nayagarh Range and confiscation proceeding was initiated. The petitioner filed an application under Section 57 of the Orissa Forest Act for interim release of the said vehicle pending confiscation proceeding. The Authorised Officer, Nayagarh Division, rejected the said prayer for interim release by order dated 18.10.2002 on various grounds and also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2000 in which it has been held that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not no...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Naik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(II)OLR329
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel.2. It is submitted that the petitioner was the Secretary of the Co-operative Society. It is also submitted that on the basis of the audit report, a false case has been initiated against him under Section 409, I.P.C.3. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, as a special case, I direct that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned J.M.F.C. Rajgangpur in G.R. Case No. 157 of 2002 and moves for bail, he shall be released on bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) and executing a bond for Rs. 15.000/- with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the said J.M.F.C. with the conditions that :(i) the petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity:(ii) shall co-operative the investigating agency as and when required, and(iii) shall surrender before the Court below in case charge sheet is filed or process is issued against h...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Naik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4179; 2003(II)OLR97
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J. 1.By this appeal the sole appellant Govinda Naik seeks to challenge the Judgment dated 29-6-1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaypore in Sessions Case No. 191 of 1994 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and one year respectively, with direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3-2-1993 at about 8.30 A.M. P.W. 1 Sunasingh Majhi being the son of Dhanful Majhi lodged an information at Kashipur Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on the previous Tuesday in the morning his father Dhanful Majhi (since deceased) had gone to the house of the appellant at village Pinadusi. As the deceased did not return till the evening, P.W. 1 along with his co-villager Jaisingh Majhi went to the village of the appellant when (where) the appellant told him that the deceased along with his uncle of village Barakaudi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Sundara and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(II)OLR195
R.K. Patra, J.1. The petitioner's are said to be elected Ward Members of Kantia Gram Panchayat under Jatni Block of the district of Khurda. In this writ petition, they seek quashing of the work order dated 7.6.2000 at Annexure-4 issued by the Block Development Officer in favour of opposite party No. 5 relating to the work 'restoration of Kantia road to Gram Panchayat office road'.2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioners is that before the work was entrusted to opposite party No. 5, the Ward Members were not noticed nor any meeting was convened by the Block Development Officer for the purpose.3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Block Development Officer, the allegations made in the writ petition have been stoutly denied. It has been stated therein that Palli Sabha was conducted in village Kantia for selection of village work representative to execute the emergent work damaged during , the super cyclone. Notices were duly issued On 26.5.2000, Palli Sabha was held...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »