Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1990Ori168
Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner, a tenant under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has moved this Court in an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution with a prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the order dt. 23-9-1988 passed in M.R.C. Case No. 50 of 1987 pending in the Court of the House Rent Controller, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'the Controller') holding that the proceeding before him was maintainable and a further prayer for declaring that the Controller has no jurisdiction to proceed with the aforesaid case and that all actions taken by him after 4-5-1988 are without jurisdiction and null and void. 2. The challenge as indicated in the writ application and the submissions made before us is based on a very short and interesting argument that after 4-5-1988 the Act ceased to have effect and therefore, any action taken in a proceeding which was instituted under the said Act, prior...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1985(I)OLR545
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioners in these six applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are tenants against whom their respective land-lords filed proceedings under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction. The said proceedings stand at different stages; in four cases, namely, O. J, Cs. 1967/83, 1816/84, 2003/84 and 2030/84 final orders of eviction have bean passed against the petitioners, in the other two namely. O. J Cs. 2507/81 and 1217/82 the proceedings are pending before the House Rent Controller.In all these cases a common question relating to the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act has been raised on behalf of the petitioners. The question is that the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (Orissa Act 4 of 1968 ) having spent its force by efflux of time on 3. 5.1981, the Orissa House Rent Control {Amendment) Act, 1981 (Orissa Act 15 of 1981) purporting to the extend of the life of the forme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1962Ori24; 28(1962)CLT66
Narasimham, C.J.1. These two applications were heard together and are disposed of by one judgment. 2. The two petitioners are holders of leases of manganese ores in the district of Sundargarh in Orissa. The Administrator, Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund by his orders dated 24th and 25th May 1960 respectively levied cess on them under the provisions of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 (Orissa Act 27 of 1952) hereinafter referred to as the impugned State Act) and called upon them to deposit the cess within a certain period. The two petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the impugned State Act and the levy of cess under its provision and have prayed for the issue of a appropriate direction under Article 226 of the Constitution cancelling the notice of demand issued to them.3. It is necessary to briefly narrate the variousstatutes dealing with the regulation and development of mines and minerals. In 1948 the DominionLegislature passed an Act entit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1995Ori95; 1995(I)OLR132
Nanavati, C.J.1. Divergent opinions expressed by this Court on the question whether a proceeding for eviction is maintainable before the House Rent Controller, even after the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act') ceased to be in force, has made it necessary for this larger Bench to consider that question. The Uma-kant Pradhan v. S.D.J.M.-cum-House Rent Controller, 69 (1990) CIT 207, this Court held that the House Rent Contoller would have no jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding for eviction initiated after the expiry of the Act. The reasons given for taking that View of are that under Section 1(4) of the Act read with Section 5 of the Orissa General Clauses Act what is saved in an acquired or accrued right and not a mere possibility of acquiring a right; that the right which the landlord gets under Section 7 of the Act, either because of default in payment of rent or on any other ground for eviction mentioned therein is merely a right to approach the House Rent C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 85(1998)CLT240
ORDERPradipta Ray, J.1. The present petitioner as plaintiff filed O.S. No. 12/80-I in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri against the opp. parlies. The suit was filed on March 18, 1980 and was valued at Rs. 7,7 00/-. In the said suit petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code which was registered as Misc. Case No. 103 of 1981. By judgment and order dated October 8, 1985 the trial Court allowed the said application in part and restrained the opp. parties from receiving dry bhog from the pilgrims and other devotees on the pretext of offering the same to the deities. The trial Court, however, refused to prohibit payment of Dakshina to the opp. parties. Against the said interim order present opp. parties I and 2 filed Misc. Appeal No. 70/98 of 1985/86 in the Court of District Judge, Puri. By judgment and order dated November 4, 1994 Second Additional District Judge, Puri passed the following order :'The defendants 1 to 4(a) in T. S. 12/80...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1989Ori158; 68(1989)CLT82
Agarwal, C.J. 1. This writ application, arising out of an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri, acting as the appellate authority under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act'), by which he has allowed the appeal of the tenant against the order of rejection of his application for setting aside an ex parte order of eviction passed by the House Rent Controller, raises a question of construction of Section 13 of the Act, namely, as to whether the appellate authority was competent in law to entertain the appeal.2. Earlier, when this writ application was listed before a Division Bench of this Court, it referred the matter to a larger Bench to resolve some conflict between the observations made in different decisions of this Court, particularly in the case of Maganlal Sharma v. Smt. Maya Dutta, ILR (1979) 2 Cuttack 455 and Arun Sunder Das v. B. Subash Subudhi Rao, (1988) 65 Cut LT 169 Kandula Prabhakar Rao v. Tumulu Lakshmanamurty, (1987) 64 Cut LT 713 : (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2010Ori41
L.K. Mishra, J.1. The wife-appellant has challenged the judgment of the Judge, Family Court dated 21 -9-2001 in Civil Proceeding No. 85 of 1998 by which he annulled the marriage of the parties under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. Sidhartha Pandit, the husband (the respondent herein) filed the petition for annulment of the marriage on the ground that at the time of marriage the wife was suffering from recurrent attacks of epilepsy. The marriage of the parties took place on 5-2-1998 according to the Hindu rites and customs. On 13-1-1998 at about 3.00 A. M. the husband woke up and found the wife having an epileptic attack. She had lost her sense and was salivating. One Dr. Bankim Patnaik, who was neighbour of the husband was called and on examination found the wife to be suffering from severe attack of epilepsy. He prescribed medicines and also advised to consult a Neurologist. On the next day morning on enquiry she disclosed that she was subjected to intermittent attack of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori188; [1962]32CompCas908(Orissa)
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clauses 4 and 6 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of tile Letters Patent of the Patna High Court against the decision of the Company Judge (late Rao, J.), in Company Act Case no. 2 of 1955 directing the appellant, to rectify the Share Register by incorporating the name of Respondent No. 1 (State of Orissa) as the holder of Shares Nos. 1 to 7500. The order was passed under Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (Act VII of 1913 hereinafter referred to as the Act). The judgment of Rao, J. was delivered on 22nd November, 1956. But on 13th September, 1957 he passed a further order under Section 39 of the Act directing the appellant to give notice of the rectification to be filed with the Registrar within a fortnight from, that date. The appellant has also challenged the jurisdiction of the Company Judge to pass the order alleging that his order dated 13th September, 1957 was in the nature of a supplementary order not c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1960Ori88
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the appellate order dated the 2nd September, 1958 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur, maintaining the order of the District Magistrate of Sundargarh declining to renew the temporary license granted to the petitioner to exhibit cinema films in a temporary building at Rajgangpur.2. Rajgangpur was formerly a village in Sundargarh district but it has gradually grown into a fairly big town consequent on the establishment of a Cement factory and other industrial concerns there. On the 1st January, 1951, the petitioner was first given a temporary license to exhibit cinema films at Rajgangpur. This license was renewed from time to time after the expiry of the usual period of three months and the last period of renewal expired on 31-12-57. The building where the cinema films were exhibited was a temporary structure but it appears that the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1953Ori121
Jagannadhadas, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner who is the proprietor of Madhupur Estate in Cuttack district, against the State of Orissa and the Court of Wards of the Orissa State, as well as against the Deputy Collector in charge of the Wards Estate. The State Government by virtue of the powers conferred on it under Section 16, Orissa Court of Wards Act, 1947, issued notification No. 9876/R dated the 7th December 1951, in the Revenue Department declaring the petitioner a disqualified proprietor under Section 10 (f) (iv) of the said Act and published the same in the Orissa Gazette in accordance with the provision of Section 21 of the Act. The Court of Wards assumed superintendence of the Madhupur Estate by virtue of the said notification on the 8th December 1951. Since then, the Estate has been under the management of the Court of Wards. The petitioner has accordingly come forward with this application dated the 5th March 1952, chal...
Tag this Judgment!