Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-27-1976
Reported in : AIR1976Ori159; 42(1976)CLT580
..... sub-section shall be inserted, namely:-- '(2a) the holder of a mining lease, whether granted before or after the commencement of the mines and minerals (regulation and development) amendment act, 1972, shall not be liable to pay any royalty in respect of any coal consumed by a workman engaged in a colliery provided that such consumption by the workman does ..... we think the decision of the calcutta high court is of any assistance to mr. mohanty's contention.6. mr. mohanty next relies upon the provisions of the. amending act in support of his contention. he claims that as from the working of the statutory provision, it transpired that the true intention of the statute as contained in section ..... the other hand, a new sub-section was added to confer for the first time a benefit. the manner in which sub-section (2-a) of the amending act has been couched comes to support the contention advanced on behalf of the state that the benefit was intended to be conferred for the first time. a limit .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-08-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Ori161
..... but being influenced by the pleas in the written statement of the contesting defendants and holding that the suit was governed by section 7 (vi-a) (orissa amendment) of the court-fees act and calling upon the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee on the value of her share. that direction of the learned additional district judge is, therefore, ..... singh rai v. chitrabhanu singh rai, air 1971 ori 108, on which mr. patra relies, two propositions have been laid down, namely:(a) the result of orissa amendment of, the court-fees act by introducing section 7 (vi-a) is that 'in orissa, a suit for partition and separate possession of a share of joint family property or of joint property ..... the plaint. looking to the plaint allegation and the reliefs claimed, the court-fee payable is not under section 7 (vi-a) (orissa amendment) but under article 17-a of schedule ii of the court-fees act. i think there is great force in mr. patra's contention. it is a well settled principle of law that the question of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-21-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Ori12; 42(1976)CLT940
..... of the litigation. as the learned judge was of the view that the suit was hit by section 39 of the orissa estates abolition act, he did not find any useful purpose for allowing the amendment.11. an amendment of the pleadings can be granted at any stage -of the litigation. in the case of baishnaba v. nityananda, air 1969 ori 34, an ..... in possession ever since 1943, which the defendant is very likely to exploit in ,his additional written statement in case of any amendment, the second hurdle is that the suit lands have been settled fay the o. e, a. act collector with the defendant in case no. c. p. 2797 of 1961. admittedly the service inam lands have vested with the state .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-15-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Ori19; 42(1976)CLT796
..... 35 or section 36-a (other than an order dismissing the case for default or non-prosecution) prior to the date of commencement of the orissa land re-forms (second amendment) act, 1975, may if he has not preferred an appeal as provided in sub-section (1), prefer the same within one year from the said date.59.revision: -59 ..... that an -appellate order under section 44 is not amenable to revision under section 59 (1) of the act.by the amending act, appellate orders made under section 44 (2) of the act even in proceedings initiated prior to the amendment would be open to revision because providing a revision as a new and/or additional forum for ventilation of grievance ..... to whether the impugned appellate order was revisable, it is necessary mainly to consider the provisions in sections 44, 45, 58 and 59 of the act. these provisions have been amended by orissa act 29 of 1976 which came into force with effect from 19th may, 1976. for convenience, we extract below juxtaposed to each other the various .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-04-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Ori1; 42(1976)CLT1097
..... state to disobey or disregard the decision given by the high court but removes the basis of its decision, the challenge made by the respondent to the amending act must fail.........'it is thus clear that the court was prepared to adopt the same ratio as had prevailed in several cases of the supreme court referred to ..... the judicial committee, the federal court and this court referred to above, it must be held that the absence of a provision in the amending act to give retrospective operation to section 3 of the act does not affect the validity of section 4 as contended for. it was open to parliament to adopt either course, e.g. (a ..... been appealed against, nor its correctness was challenged before the supreme court. section 7 of the amending act which was impugned did not change the law retrospectively. all that it provided was that notwithstanding anything contained in the principal act or in the amending act or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, no assessment or re-assessment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-11-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Ori69
..... be found entitled to, the court directed the plaintiffs to recover possession on payment of the requisite court-fees. we agree with mr. dutta that if an amendment of the plaint had been asked for, it would have been more appropriate than the court exercising suo motu jurisdiction. but we are not inclined to agree that ..... that the said bar applied to the suit, mr. mahapatra for the respondent claimed that it was not a suit covered by section 34 of the specific relief act. it is true that the plaintiffs had alleged that they were still in possession notwithstanding the alienation. the court, however, found that plaintiffs were not in possession. ..... singh, air 1974 sc 2161. the learned single judge nowhere categorically held that the presumption in support of the adoption as provided under section 16 of the adoption act was available. mr. mahapatra for the respondent, however, strenuously pressed before us that even if in the plaint in support of the adoption the statutory presumption had .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-19-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Ori128; 43(1977)CLT293
..... cr. p. c. subsequently, after verification with the order of attachment (ext. 4) passed by the learned. magistrate in the proceeding under section 145. cr. p. c. the appellant amended the memo of appeal and appended thereto a list of the properties which were not the subject-matter of dispute in the proceeding under section 145, cr. p. c. it ..... is barred by the principles of res judicata.15. now the next question for consideration is whether the suit is barred by limitation. art 47 of the indian lim. act, 1908 provides a period of limitation of three years from the date of the final order under section 145, cr p. c. the plaintiffs had therefore to bring a ..... 10 of 1962) he claimed title under will of siromani and not as her heir: and (b) it was barred by limitation under article 47 of the old limitation act. the above findings were upheld in the appeal preferred by both the plaintiffs. this second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff no. 2 alone challenging the findings on the questions .....
Tag this Judgment!