Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2003Ori55
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant before this Court against a reversing judgment. 2. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants= respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties described in the schedule attached to the plaint. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties are self acquired properties received by him under two deeds namely, 'registered gift deed dated 14-7-1976 and registered sale deed dated 5-1-1978. According to the plaintiff-appellant, he is in peaceful possession of the suit properties received by him under the aforesaid two deeds and the suit properties have been recorded in his name in the R. O. R. and he is paying rent for the same. Defendant No. 1 is the eldest son of the plaintiff staying separately. The further allegation of the plaintiff is that the defendant No. 1 is pulling on well with the other defendants and on 20th December, 1981 they attempte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : I(2006)BC566
B.P. Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.9.2004 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 4469 of 2002. The appellant is the complainant, and he is aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court whereby the High Court remitted the matter to the Magistrate on a finding that the Magistrate had issued process against the respondents without taking cognizance of the offence, and since taking of cognizance was a condition precedent, the issuance of process was bad. The correctness of this order is challenged before us.3. It is not in dispute that four cheques were issued by respondent 2, the Managing Director of respondent 1 Company for the total amount of Rs. five crores. The payments v/ere made by respondent 2 on behalf of respondent 1 Company of which he was a Director. The cheques were dishonoured since respondent 2 stopped payment of those cheques. The appellant filed a complaint before the 14t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(I)OLR156
B. Panigrahi, J.1. In this appeal the order of acquittal of the respondents of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge. Puri in Sessions Trial No. 20/35 of 1986 has been assailed by the State.2. The brevity of the prosecution story, as narrated in the trial Court's judgment as follows :In the night of 28/29.10. 1 986 the respondents along with two others unknown culprits broke open the door of the dwelling house of the deceased Sudarshan Sahu and entered into the said house. The inmates of the house were then under the impression that the miscreants had trespassed into the house for commission of dacoity. However, when the household belongings were offered to them, they refused to receive the same and insisted the inmates to make way. They fired a gun from a point-blank range resulting in the death of the deceased Sudarsan Sahu. Incidentally, all the inmates at that ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1991(56)ELT290(Ori)
D.M. Patnaik J.1. The petitioners in both the cases assail the order dated 17-12-1976 of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar in imposing penalty of Rs. 1000/- on petitioner No. 2 in each case for violation of the provisions under Section 133 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the 'Act'). The penalty has been imposed as prescribed under Section 117 of the Act.2. Facts in brief.Petitioner No. 1 is the Paradip Port Trust and petitioner No. 2 Shri B.D. Naygandhi (in O.J.C. No. 91/77) at the relevant time, was the Traffic Manager whose normal duty was to allot berths U the vessels coming to the Port and petitioner No. 2 Shri V.L. Choudhury (in O.J.C. No. 155/77) was the Deputy Conservator of the Port.The Vessel M.V. JAGDARSHAN arrived at the Port on 29-3-1976. The Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, having received information that the vessel was being used as a conveyance for disposal of foreign imported prohibited articles, exercised his power under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT530
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Assailing the award dated 21st November 2002 passed by the Second Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1995 the claimants have filed M.A.C.A. No. 89/2003. The same award has been assailed by the Insurance Company in M.A.C.A. No. 203/2003. As the facts and points of law involved in both the appeals are same, both the matters were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The claimants filed an application before the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, inter alia, stating that their son Maheswar Sahoo met with an accident on 3.11.2004 and succumbed to the injury sustained. They alleged that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. ORM-6765 and accordingly they claimed compensation for the death of their son.3. On receiving notice the Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement denying its liability to pay any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : II(2004)ACC174; 2003(II)OLR167
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. challenging the judgment dated 25.7.01 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ganjam, Berhampur. in W.C. Case No. 108 of 1998. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.7-200] in the above noted case, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred the appeal before this Court.2. The fact of the case in brief, is that deceased P. Bhaskara Rao was working as the driver in the car bearing registration No. AHQ 2608 which belonged to opposite party- respondent No. 2. While deceased P. Bhaskar Rao was driving the car on 31.10.98 from Berhampur to Titilagarh, he met with an accident with a police jeep coming from the opposite direction. As a result, he sustained severe injuries on his head, abdomen and other parts of the body and was removed to District Headquarters Hospital, Sonepur for treatment. On 1.11.98 said deceased P. Bhaskar Rao was removed to Military Hospital, Badm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : I(2003)DMC44
B. Panigrahi, J.1. In the aforementioned civil appeal and criminal revision the appellant-wife has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela dated 16.12.1998 and 25.9.1998 in Civil Proceeding No. 88/1997 and Criminal Proceeding No. 64/1997 respectively allowing the prayer of the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal right Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-wife for maintenance Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The factual matrix leading to these cases is as follows :The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 26.11.1995 according to Hindu rites and customs. Their' marriage was consummated immediately thereafter. The appellant-wife joined her matrimonial house and stay there for about a year. During the period' of gestation she came back to her parents' house. Before birth of the child she was take...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT199; I(2006)DMC457; 2005(II)OLR708
ORDERMATA No. 37 of 2004Misc. Case No. 7 of 20051. This case is listed today for orders on the application for interim maintenance and the litigation expenses. On consent of the parties, we take up this MATA for hearing and disposal, inasmuch as the consideration remains confined to interpretation of law and the legal position as to whether an ex parte decree granted in matrimonial proceeding is liable to be set aside under Order-IX, Rule-13, C.P.C. Learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Misc. Case No. 24 of 2004 under Order-IX, Rule-13, C.P.C. filed by the present appellant rejected her prayer for setting aside the ex parte decree passed on 6.7.2004 in Civil Proceeding No. 194 of 2002. The appellant's prayer in that respect was rejected by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela following the ratio in the case of Anjan Kumar Kataki v. Smt. Minakshi Sarma, AIR 1985, Gauhati-44. The ratio in that decision supports the finding of learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, but we see that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2005ACJ1716
B.P. Das, J.1. This appeal is directed against an award dated 26.12.1995 passed by the Member, 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (S.D.), Berhampur in M.A.C. No. 5 of 1993 (165 of 1992).2. The brief fact leading to this appeal is that on 27.12.1991 at about 9 a.m. while respondent No. 1 along with other coolies was traveling in the offending truck bearing No. ORL 299, it met with an accident, resulting in the death of three coolies and he sustained injuries on his person. The respondent No. 1-claimant was working as coolie in the aforesaid truck.3. The Tribunal framed as many as five issues and came to a finding that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle the accident occurred and the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving licence as well as the vehicle was validly insured on the date of accident. The Claims Tribunal in the aforesaid M.A.C. had directed the payment of compensation of Rs. 21,600 which includes Rs. 2,500 towards mental agony, pain and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(I)OLR248
Pradipta Ray, J.1. Respondent-wife, Shantilata Swain instituted Civil Proceeding No. 38 of 1997 before the Family Court, Rourkela for restitution of conjugal rights and custody of children. Appellant-husband, Kalpataru Swain initiated Civil Proceeding No. 92 of 1997 in the said Family Court for a decree of divorce on the ground contained in Section 13(1), (la) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act').2. Family Court by its judgment dated October 5, 1999 allowed the application for restitution of conjugal rights and granted an alimony of Rs. 700/- per month in favour of the wife. By a separate judgment dated October 5, 1999 Family Court dismissed husband's application for divorce.3. Appellant-husband has filed Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1999 against the judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights and Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1999 against those refusing to grant a decree for divorce in this Court. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being dispos...
Tag this Judgment!