Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delimitation amendment act 2003 section 4 amendment of section 8 Court: orissa Page 8 of about 5,047 results (0.102 seconds)

Aug 13 1993 (HC)

Palau Bag and ors. Vs. Adhikari Patra and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1993(II)OLR359

..... right, title and interest was irrelevant as if the area was not consolidate area, the civil court undoubtedly had the jurisdiction to decide the issues. the amendment act in 1989 does not purport to set aside the effect of a decree passed unless the land has been subjected to a consolidation proceeding and contrary orders ..... order, etc., treating a land to be consolidation area even though it was not so under the pre- amended act.2. the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioners is that since the consolidation act has been amended retrospectively to include homestead land as consolidable area and the suit was also otherwise substantially for the relief of ..... in 1988 (i) olr 334, a1r 1988 orissa 166 (sundarmani bewa v. dasarath parida) deciding homestead land to be not consolidable area, the consolidation act was amended by orissa act 2 of 1989 substituting the definition of section 2 (g) of the consolidation area retro- spectively from 10-8-1973 and validating all orders passed in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1992 (HC)

Subash Chandra Jena Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1992(II)OLR173

..... the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. section 167(2-a) which was inserted by criminal procedure code (amendment) act, 1976 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation,,if .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1989 (HC)

Saria Bewa Vs. Balaram Puhan and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1990Ori36; 68(1989)CLT363

..... provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal act as amended by this act stand repealed. there is nothing in the aforesaid amendment of order 22. rule 12 which is inconsistent with the principal act as amended by act 104 of 1976. thus the said amendment remains effective even after the civil p.c. was amended by the aforesaid amendment act. even otherwise, some high courts are of the view ..... of the suit a final decree is requried to be passed. the aforesaid high court amendment was made on 7-5-1954. the civil p.c. (amendment) act, 1976 (act 104 of 1976) in section 97 saved the same by enacting that any amendment made or any provision inserted in the principal act by a state legislature or a high court before the commencement of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1993 (HC)

Chintamani Khuntia and ors. Vs. the State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1994Ori46

..... no sevak shall be entitled to any share in the offerings placed in the hundi installed after the commencement of sri jagannath temple (amendment) act (act 10 of 1983) (hereinafter called '1983 amendment act'). the 1983 amendment act also provides for constituting a 'foundation fund' and section 28-c(9) makes similar restrictions for appropriation of any share credited in ..... the constitutional validity of sections 28-b(5) and 28-c(5)(a) and 28-c(9) inserted to the jagannath temple act by jagannath temple (amendment) act, 1983 (hereinafter called 'the amendment act') and for declaring the same as ultra vires being hit by articles 14, 25, 26 and 300a of the constitution of india.2 ..... continued to enjoy such rights as emoluments which they claim as inseparable part of their seva. it is alleged that by the sri jagarmath temple amendment act, 1983 (orissa act 10 of 1983) in which some new sections were inserted the details of which shall be enumerated later on the aforesaid right of these groups .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2000 (HC)

Raghunath Ray and Another Vs. Madhabananda Mallik

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 91(2001)CLT140

..... court is itself to execute it or send it to any other subordinate, court of competent jurisdiction. so far as the present case is concerned, it is governed under the amended act of 1976 and under order 21, rule 5 the court which passed such decree can send the decree directly to such other court whether or not such other court is ..... (supra). shri b. h. mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party, submits that the decision referred to by shri kar is under the provisions of the old code and after amendment of the code in 1976 as per the new provision it is not necessary to send the decree to the district court for execution. from the decision relied upon by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1990 (HC)

Ramsewak Kashinath Vs. SarafuddIn and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1991Ori51; 71(1991)CLT49

..... and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.'it may be noted that this provision was not there in the civil procedure code of 1908 and was brought by way of amendment by amending act of 1976 which was given effect to with effect from 1-2-1977.5. so far as first submission of mr. basu is concerned, it depends upon ..... -claim cannot be entertained, an express provision should be inserted in the code of civil procedure for this purpose. the bill that was introduced in the parliament for amending the civil procedure code indicates that the provisions relating to counter-claim having been included in order 8, a consequential change has been made in the heading of the order and ..... rules 6a to 6g are being inserted with a view to making a detailed provision relating to counter-claim. even rules 7 and 8 are amended to include counter-claim therein. in the premises, as aforesaid, 1 am in respectful disagreement with the views expressed by the learned judges of the patna high court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1981 (HC)

Rahas Bewa Vs. Kanduri Charan Sutar and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1982Ori48; 54(1982)CLT143

..... one party from interfering with the possession of the other, and whether a relief for such purpose would be barred by section 67 of the land reforms act, the legislature advisedly amended subsection. (7) in incorporating therein words 'restraining the landlord from interfering with the tenant's cultivation of the land or for such other purposes.' mrs. ..... property, taking into account the claim of the opposite party. therefore, in our opinion, the suit, instituted by the respondent, is covered by the amended section 5 of the act.'these observations prima facie support the stand of the defendants to the effect that the suit would abate. we may usefully refer to another decision of the ..... , the court considered the effect of section 5 of the u. p. consolidation of holdings act and observed (at p. 716) :--'we have already extracted the provisions of section 5 of the act as it originally stood, and as it now stands, after the amendment in 1966. no doubt, in clause (b) (i) of section 5, as it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 1952 (HC)

Kudura Podhan Vs. Gangadhar Behera

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1953Ori238; 18(1952)CLT267

..... sahu', air 1952 orissa 244 (b), regarding the construction of the expression 'tribunal'.mr. patnaik however urged that the amendment made to the said act by orissa act 2 of 1948 authorised the revenue officer concerned to decree ejectment either on an application by any one interested or 'on his ..... ejectment of the person found in the unlawful possession of the property. an appeal has also been provided by the recent amendment made in orissa act 2 of 1948. the order is of a final nature, subject o course to a right of appeal and not ..... amount to a judicial determination of any dispute. it is true that by virtue of the amendment of 1948 it is not necessary that there should be two parties before a revenue officer when he proceeds to take action ..... special assistant agent, balliguda.2. the petitioner is a khond who is a member of a hill tribe as defined in the said act. the opposite party is admittedly not a member of a hill-tribe. the petitioner appliedfor restoration of a plot of land known as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 1983 (HC)

Sri Brundaban Patra Vs. Priyanath Acharya

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 57(1984)CLT164; 1984(I)OLR147

..... respect of the disputed property taking into account the claim of the opposite party. therefore, in our opinion, the suit, instituted by the respondent, is covered by the amended section 5 of the act.'8. in view of my foregoing findings, the civil revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. o. s. no. 340/59 of 1980-83(i ..... land having come under the consolidation operation, a prayer was made for an order for abatement of the suit under section 5 of the u. p. consolidation of holdings act, 1953, as amended by u. p. act 21 of 1966. in section 5, as it originally stood, suits for possession of land were expressly dealt with, but under the ..... amended section there is no direct reference to 'suit 8 for possession of land'. it was urged before their lordships that when section 5 was amended by omitting 'suits for possession of land' the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1997 (HC)

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamala Moharana and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1998ACJ1036; 1997(II)OLR189

..... order xle, rule 27 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'code'). the clause (aa) has been inserted in this rule by the amendment act of 1976 to provide that additional evidence may be received by the appellate court if the appellant satisfies the court that after the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was ..... a defect in the existing evidence on the record. order xli, rule 27 relates to taking of additional evidence in the appellate court. in the 27th report an amendment had been recommended by the law commission in this rule in implementation of the recommendation made in the fourteenth report (volume i page 405, para 45, second sub ..... to a; 'deceased') lost his life in an automible accident which took place on 4.4.1990. his legal representatives lodged a claim under section 110-a of the act claiming compensation of rs. 2,43,220/-. pranaya kumar moharathi (hereinafter referred to as owner')and national insurance company ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') were, .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //