Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT847; [2008(4)JCR181(NULL)]
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The dispute in the present Writ Petition arises out of a proceeding initiated under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. The lands in dispute were the absolute properties of Durga Charan Dey who expired in the year 1990. The two Petitioners are the daughters of Durga Charan through his wife late Basanta Manjari. It is alleged that opposite party No. 2 Smt. Amruti Ray was the second wife of Durga Charan. Through Amruti, it is stated, Santosh Kumar Ray, opposite party No. 1 was born. Purshpalata, opposite party No. 3, is the wife of Santosh. After the village in which the lands were situated came within the fold of the Act, opposite party No. 2 claiming to be the wife of late Durga Charan filed Objection Cases before the Consolidation Officer, Balia to get the lands left behind by Durga Charan recorded in her name as well as in the name of her son, opposite party No. 1. The said claim was stron...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT598; 2008(I)OLR685
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. Insurance Company is the appellant. Aggrieved by the award dated 22.12.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuapada in M.J.C. No. 40/54 of 1995-2001, this appeal has been preferred. The award was passed for a total sum of 60,000/- which had been categorized as follows:Compensation: Rs. 36,000/-Medical Expenses: Rs. 15,000/-Pain & suffering: Rs. 5,000/-For attending the injured: Rs. 3,000/- andFor the loss of income: Rs. 900/-.2. The total comes to Rs. 59,000/- and an odd which was rounded up to Rs. 60,000/-. There is no dispute over the expenses. There is also no dispute about the injury or fracture in the left hand of the claimant who happened to be a coolie worker. He was an indoor patient for more than 20 days as per Ext. 2. His fracture in the left hand was proved by the document marked as Ext. 6. The doctor's report supports the same. The age of the injured was stated to be '28' at the time of injury. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT844; 2008(I)OLR823
Sanju Panda, J.1. This is an application to recall/review the order dated 4.5.2007 passed in CRP No. 319 of 2003. In the aforesaid Revision the petitioner challenged the order dated 23rd August, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Probate Misc. Case No. 8 of 2003 as a District Delegate dismissing the petitioner's prayer for grant of probate on the ground of maintainability in view of Section 287 of the Indian Succession Act, 1955 as there is no contention, as to transmit.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that Section 18 of the Orissa Civil Courts Act, 1984 provides for a proceeding under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and as per the said Section, the Civil Judge has the jurisdiction to consider the dispute. Since the civil revision was disposed of with a finding that the Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to dispose of the non-contention matter, the same is an error apparent on the face of the record which may be rev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2008)106CALLT36(NULL)
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is a Defendants' appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by Learned' Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in Title Appeal No. 40 of 1994, reversing the Judgment and decree of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Keonjhar recorded in T.S. No. 4 of 1988.2. The Present Respondents as Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration their right, title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and alternatively for recovery of possession of that land, if they are found dispossessed in the meantime and for issuance of permanent injunction against the Defendants from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land. The case of the Plaintiffs was that their grand-father-Butu Behera. purchased the suit land from the father of the Defendants in the year 1952 for a consideration of Rs. 100/- took delivery of possession of that land and continued possession over the suit land where after his son Harihar Palei possessed the same and after th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR193
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The facts and points of law in all these Writ applications being the same, the same were heard together.2. The dispute is with regard to the properties owned by one Bhagaban Panda, the common ancestor of the contesting parties. Madani was the wife of.Bhagaban. They had three daughters being Sakhi, Malati and Tulasi. Bhagaban died way back in the year 1912 and his wife Madani died in the year 1926. Thus in consonance with the Hindu Law, the entire property was inherited by the aforesaid three daughters. Sakhi had one son namely Nabakishore Panda who was originally opposite party No. 7 in OJC No. 9378/95. He having died his LRs have been substituted in his place. Malati was issueless. Tulasi had one son namely Rama and two daughters namely Rambha and Budhi. Rama had two sons namely Sadam Charan Panda and Bhagaban Panda who are the Writ petitioners.For the sake of brevity and better understanding the genealogy of the family which is not disputed by the parties is given be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori98
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') was filed on 3-2-2006 praying for appointment of an Arbitrator.2. In this connection, the arbitration clause is as follows:64.(3)(a)(ii) In cases not covered by Clause 64(3)(a)(i), the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of a panel of three Gazetted Rly. Officers not below JA grade, as the arbitrators. For this purpose, the Railway will send a panel of more than 3 names of Gazetted Rly. Officers of one or more departments of the Rly. to the contractor who will be asked to suggest to General Manager up to 2 names out of the panel for appointment as contractor's nominee. The General Manager shall appoint at least one out of them as the contractor's nominee and will, also simultaneously appoint the balance number of arbitrators either from the panel or from outside the panel, duly indicating the 'presiding arbitrator' from amongst the 3 arbitrators s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008ACJ2310; AIR2008Ori111; 105(2008)CLT678; 2008(I)OLR809
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This case is listed today for orders on the basis of defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter that no certified copy of the impugned award was filed along with the memorandum of appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said defect may be ignored, as he has presented the memorandum of appeal along with the true copy of the award supplied by the learned Tribunal in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act'). He further submits that there can be no doubt about the genuineness of the true copy of the award which has been issued by the learned Tribunal, and in that view of the matter there is no need to file certified copy of the impugned award. Relying on Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 of Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, 1960, he submits that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the award appealed against. He also relies on the provisions containe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR856
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in M.S. No. 143 of 1992.2. Plaintiff is a Nationalized Bank. Defendant No. 1 applied to the plaintiff-Bank for a loan of Rs. 1,65,000/- for purchase of a Tata Truck. The plaintiff-Bank after considering the said application sanctioned the loan. Defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor for that loan. Pursuant to the sanction of loan, both the defendants jointly executed a deed of agreement making them jointly and severally liable for repayment of the loan with interest. It was agreed that the loan would be repaid by monthly, instalments of Rs. 3,900/- commencing from 1.12.1984. Defendant No. 1 defaulted in repayment of the loan in spite of demands by the officials of the plaintiff-Bank and a sum of Rs. 1,91,756.40 remained outstanding. Since this amount was not paid in spite of advocate's notice served by the plaintiff-Bank, s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2009]148CompCas477(Orissa); [2009]96SCL347(NULL)
M.M. Das, J.1. Co. Pet. No. 28 of 2003 has been filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the opposite party, the Orissa Pump and Engineering Company Ltd. with a prayer for winding of the said company along with other ancillary prayers.2. The petitioner is the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd., which is a Government of Orissa undertaking. It is the case of the petitioner that the opposite party is a registered company under the Registrar of Companies, Orissa. The petitioner-company carries on business to promote and establish. companies and associations for the prosecution or execution of industrial undertakings, projects and industrial enterprises of any description whether of a private or public character which in the opinion of the petitioner-company would contribute to the industrial development of Orissa and to acquire and dispose of shares and interest in such companies or associations or undertakings on such terms and conditions as may be d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR183
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. The petitioner-Bansidhar Pattnaik, in this writ application, has sought to challenge the following orders:(i) Order dated 19.05.1990 passed by the Revenue Officer,(ii) Order dated 27.2.1993 passed by the Sub-Collector in Appeal, and(iii) the order dated 9.7.1993 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam, Chhatrapur in Revision.2. Miss Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders under Annexures 1, 2 and 3 and the proceedings giving rise to them are vitiated on account of non-constitution and non-consultation of the 'Local Committee' as contemplated under Section 43 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. She further submits that while the Revenue Officer had directed vide his order dated 21.8.1989 to convene a 'Local Committee', yet no such local committee was convened nor any consultation was ever effected by the Revenue Officer with such local committee. In this respect, Miss Mishra submits that since the provisions of Rule 27...
Tag this Judgment!