Orissa Court January 2004 Judgments
Kasinath Mohanty Vs. Kusuma Devi Tripathy
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ori127; 97(2004)CLT481
P. K. Mohanty, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit Title Suit No. 19 of 1981 for eviction and for recovery of arrear rent at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month.2. The case of the plaintiff in short was that the suit house originally belonged to Mery Sing, wife of Laxman Rana Sing from whom he purchased the same on 22.7.1980 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- under a Regd. Sale Deed and took possession of the house on the same day. The defendant-appellant approached her for giving the suit house on rent, took the house on monthly rent of Rs. 50/- on 1.10.1980 on the condition that he would pay the rent within first week pf every month and he would vacate the same as'and when the plaintiff would require. The defendant having not paid the rent in spite of repeated demand,and registered notices, the suit. The defendant denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit house. However, admitted that the suit house originally belonged to Mery Sing and she mortgaged the house in his favour...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Behera Vs. Birakishore Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT479; 2004(I)OLR308
A. S. Naidu, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia praying to quash the criminal proceeding in G. R. Case No. 318 of 1999 pending before the J.M.F.C., Salipur. On the basis of an FIR lodged by opposite party No. 1 alleging that the petitioner had kidnapped his daughter opposite party No. 2, the said G. R. Case had been initiated. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. Before the J.M.F.C., Salipur, the petitioner filed a petition to drop the aforesaid criminal proceeding against him on the ground that in fact there was love affairs between him and opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 out of own volition had come away with the petitioner. The allegation of kidnap was strongly repudiated. It was further averred that the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 have married in accordance with the caste custom and both of them are leading a blissful conjugal life. The said petition having been reject...
Tag this Judgment!Hadiani Debi Alias Tiki Devi Vs. Kailash Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT545
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment in a suit for partition. Respondent No. 1 was the appellant in the Court below wherein the other two appellants were the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for partition for carving out her 10 annas share in lot No. 1 and 1/3rd share in lot No. 2 of the schedule a properties. The plaintiff claimed her title on the basis of the gift deed dated 19.4.1972 executed by her mother Kausali and on the basis of the record in the Hal Record of Rights noting her share. She also relies on an unregistered Panchayat Faisala (Ext. 6) dated 3.1.1965 and sale deed executed by Ananta in favour of Kausalya dated 18.7.1956.The undisputed genealogy is as under : GENEALOGY Fakir | -------------------------------------- | | | | Ananta Basu Gouranga Purusottam (died) | (died in 1965) (died issueless) issueless) Kailash Kausuli (Respt. No. 1) (died in 1972) | ---------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Purty and 2 ors. Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT686; 2004(I)OLR273
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. In this writ petition petitioners pray for the following reliefs :'It is therefore prayed that for the interest of justice your Lordships may kindly be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition and after hearing the parties issued Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show- cause as to why a joint verification has not yet been made for settlement of encroached forest lands in favour of the petitioners.If they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the Rule may kindly be made absolute.And/or necessary direction may kindly be passeddirecting to opposite Party No. 3 to prepare and grantrecord of right in favour of the petitioners as per theirentitlement.'2. The background of that prayer is that petitioners claimed to be encroachers of land in the forest for a long period and the Government in its Gazette Notification, instructions and circulars -Annexures 1 to 4 have assured to take appropriate steps for settlement of such forest land with persons simil...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mukta Mohakud and ors. Vs. J.A. Khan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC393; 97(2004)CLT561
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. In the above two appeals, challenge is made to the judgment and award of the learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack dated 29th June, 1995 and as such on the prayer and consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard analogous and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Misc. Appeal No. 419 of 1995 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas Misc. Appeal No. 491 of 1995 is by the Insurance Company challenging the award. Misc. Appeal No. 419 of 1995 by the claimants was heard and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by order dated 19.9.1996 as against which the appellants preferred A.H.O. No. 79 of 1996. The Division Bench, keeping in view the fact that Misc. Appeal No. 491 of 1995 filed by the Insurance Company is still pending consideration and in case the A.H.O. is allowed, there is likelihood of conflicting decisions, allowed the A.H.O. and remitted it back for fresh consideration along with the appeal fl...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satyabati Mohanty ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC283; 97(2004)CLT674; 2004(I)OLR329
M.M. Das, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Second Additional District Judge, Cuttack in M.V. Misc. Case No. 841 of 1992 directing the Insurance Company, i.e., the appellant in M.A.C.A No. 385 of 2003 to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000.00 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 7.5.1999.Claimants-respondents 1 and 2 in M.A.C.A No. 385 of 2003 are the parents of deceased Ramesh Chandra Mohanty and the appellants in M.A.C.A. No. 449 of 2003.2. The short facts leading to the claim made by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are that on 17.7.1992 at about 2 p.m. when the deceased Ramesh Chandra Mohanty was waiting near Panchupandav Chhak of N.H. 5 standing on the left side of the road, to board a bus, a truck bearing registration number ORY 81 suddenly dashed against him. As a consequence of such dashing, the deceased sustained se...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kasteswar Khatua Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through Its Colle ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT698; 2004(I)OLR275
1. Heard.2. Petitioner ventilates his grievance against Annexure-1. i.e. the order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarapanch, Tikarapada Grama Panchayat under Section 26 (2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (in short, 'the Act'). The detailed order is Annexure-B/1, which has been filed by the Collector.3. Sole dispute between the parties is as to whether petitioner's fourth child was born in January, 1995 or in May, 1997. According to the petitioner, that child was born in January, 1995, whereas according to the findings recorded by the opposite party No. 1, the Collector, that child was born on 16.5.1997 and accordingly he disqualified the petitioner to function as the Sarapanch of Tikarpada Grama Panchayat. In that respect, learned Collector has referred to and relied on the report of the Sub-Collector as well as the statement of the-doctor of the P.H.C. Baunsuni. There is nothing on record to indicate that before accepting such evidence to derive the conclusion ...
Tag this Judgment!Bramhananda Mishra Vs. Jogen Kumar Mishra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT627
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 66 of 1997 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela has filed this Civil Revision challenging to the order passed on 9.4.2001 by the Addl. District Judge, Rourkela in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2000. The sole defendant is the opposite party.2. Plaintiff filed the suit for damages on the allegation that in 1997 when he contested for the post of the President of Rourkela Steel Executive Association, defendant published and circulated defamatory and libellous pamphlets with false and frivolous allegations and as a result of that not only he lost the election but also his reputation was damaged and he suffered humiliation and mental agony. Accordingly he filed the suit claiming for damages of Rs. 99,900/-(rupees ninety nine thousand nine hundred). Defendant entered appearance in that case and applied for adjournments for filing written statement. His last application was rejected on 25.8.1998 and the suit was posted for ex parte ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Ori)42; [2006]283ITR562(Orissa)
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. The miscellaneous case and the two writ petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner the Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange and as they are connected with each other, they are being disposed of by this common order and judgment.2. The relevant facts are that the Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange was taken overon 9th Jan., 2003 by the Administrator appointed by the Central Governmentunder Section 11 of the Securities Contract (Regulations) Act, 1956. After taking over, the Administrator found that the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle- 1(I), Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Asstt. CIT') had issued notices to the petitioner under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') for the asst. yrs. 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 stating that its income had escaped assessment and pending assessment had provisionally attached the fixed deposits of the petitioner in different banks and in response thereto the petitioner h...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad Biswal and anr. Vs. Purna Chandra Pati
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ori129; II(2005)BC334; 2004(I)OLR265
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Defendants in Title Suit No. 10 of 1975 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, have preferred this appeal challenging to the judgment and decree passed on 4th October, 1978.2. Plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract with respect to plaint-schedule 'A' property and in the alternative to grant a decree for Rs. 9,496/- with costs and future interest. In that respect, plaintiffs case is that from 3-5-1972 to 28-5-1972 the defendants borrowed from the plaintiff both in cash and kind i.e., gold and clothings from his shop amounting to Rs. 8,000/-. Having no means to repay the same but acknowledging the amount due, defendants proposed to sell the Schedule 'A' property in favour of the plaintiff to discharge that loan. Accordingly, from the money taken from the plaintiff, defendants purchased non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs. 560/- on 13-5-1972 and a sale deed was scribed on that (Ext. 11). The defendants on a different pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »