Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1980Ori79; 48(1979)CLT333
R.N. Misra, J.1. Petitioner is a sitting Councillor of the Cuttack Municipality. Challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is to Government order dated 23rd of June, 1979 (Annexure-4), purported to have been made in exercise of powers under Section 398 (1) of the Orissa Municipal Act of 1950, cancelling a resolution of the Municipal Council of Cuttack dated 2nd of April, 1979,2. Election was held on 31st of January, 1979, for the 28 seats of Councillors and the Chairman of the Council. Petitioner was elected from Ward No. 2 while 27 others were elected from the different wards. Opposite Party No. 3 was elected as Chairman of the Municipality by direct franchise under the amended provisions of the Act. The Council assumed office with effect from 23rd of February, 1979. At the Meeting of the Council held on 2nd of April, 1979, one of the items in the Agenda was to authorise the Chairman to sanction expenditure up to Rs. 50,000/- at a time for the smooth working ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1956Ori156
Panigrahi, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration of their sole right to collect, remove, and sell Kendu leaves from inside the borders of the Garloisingh Zamindarl in Sambalpur district, and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 88200/- from the defendants for 'wrongful collection and removal' of the same during the years 1944 to 1946.The plaintiffs also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right to collect Kendu leaves in future, for the period covered by the contract entered into between the plaintiffs and the deceased Zamindar, Madan Mohan Singh. Defendant 1 is a lessee from defendant 2 who is the present Zamindar of Garloisingh. The father of defendant 2 executed a document, Ex. 19 datEd 29-1-1938, in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 permitting them to collect and remove kendu leaves within the ambits of his Zamindari for a period of 15 years commencing from 1944.The plaintiffs agreed to pay an annu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1963Ori144; 1963CriLJ294
Barman, J.1. The four appellants herein were convicted of murder of a woman in Keonjhar town under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. Appellant Dukhi Dei, was further convicted under Section 302/291 and 404/511. Appellants Dukhi Dei, Lokenath alias Loki Patra and Abdul Hague were sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court. Appellant Rangadhar Patra was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. No separate sentence was passed on Dukhi Dei under Section 302/291 and Section 404/511. The learned Sessions Judge made a reference under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code of confirmation of the sentences of death passed as aforesaid.2. The prosecution case is that on January 7, 1962, Sunday between 3 P. M. and 7 P. M. the four appellants murdered the deceased Mandira Dei, wife of one Gopinath Giri, in the house of the appellant Dukhi Dei in Keonjhar Town. The date of the incident is said to be a market day. The murder is alleged to have taken place after the deceased was called...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1981Ori216; 52(1981)CLT431
ORDERN.K. Das, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners against a judgment of reversal in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The appellate Court has remanded the suit to the trial Court and, as such, this revision arises. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit lands belonged originally to one Ratnakar Panda. He surrendered, these lands to the Mafidar of Jharsuguda late Lal Haribansha Singh Deo by a surrender deed dated 21-2-1942, The Mafuidar settled these lands in favour of the plaintiffs by executing three documents of lease on 7-3-1942 and since then the plaintiffs have beea in possession of these lands. Thereafter the plaintiffs got these properties partitioned and they have perfected their title on the same. The defendant forcibly possessed these lands and amalgamated these lands with his own land and a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was started which ended in favour of the defendants. The defendant in his written statement ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1986]59CompCas774(Orissa); 1984(I)OLR399
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This appeal arises from a dismissal of an action started on a motion by the widow on the death of her husband for recovery of a sum under a contract of life insurance.2. Rama Abatar Agarwala, the deceased husband of the appellant, submitted a proposal for life insurance through the local agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rourkela. Along with the proposal were submitted the report of the doctor and the report of the agent. Rama Abatar also deposited Rs. 225.45. A receipt was granted therefor by the branch office and the branch manager, it is alleged, intimated that the proposal would be accepted and policy issued within a short while. On December 1/2, 1967, the Corporation asked Rama Abatar to submit a further medical report from another authorised doctor of the Corporation. Examination was done on December 14, 1967, and the report was submitted to to the defendant-respondent on December 19, 1967. The plaintiff-appellant has averred that, while accepti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 102(2006)CLT309; 2006(II)OLR154; [2006]148STC61(Orissa)
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the initiation of a reassessment proceeding by the Sales Tax Officer (hereinafter called, 'S.T.O.-') by a notice dated 23.9.98 purported to have been issued under Section 12(8) of Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'O.S.T. Act'). The impugned notice was issued in a statutory form, being Form VI under Orissa Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'O.S.T. Rules'). The material part of the recital contained in the said notice is as follows :-FROM VINotice to a dealer under Sections 11(1) and 12(5), 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The Indure Ltd., (dealer)Banoharpali (address)Whereas it appears to me that your gross turn over in the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Orissa Sales Tax Act 1947 during the period not exceeding 12 months ending on...has exceeded 25,000 but that you have nevertheless without sufficient cause failed to apply for registration under Section 9 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 104(2007)CLT763; (2008)ILLJ452Ori
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Management of Paradip Port-Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'PPT') challenging the Judgment dated 23.7.2004 passed by a Learned Judge of the writ Court in W.P. (C) No. 6393 of 2003. By the said Judgment the Learned Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by PPT challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal.An the Writ Petition PPT challenged the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 112 of 2001. Though three items of dispute were involved in the reference, PPT's challenge was confined to one item. The said item of dispute is as follows:Whether, the claim of the Union regarding 40 workers as per list enclosed should be treated as regular workers of Paradip Port Trust and paid regular wages at par with the similar worker of Paradip Port Trust Management. If so, to what relief the workers are entitled and from which date2. The Learned Judge h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1963Ori223
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. The proceeding out of which this Civil revision arises is an application for leave to sue as pauper filed by the petitioner herein against the defendants for maintenance out of the estate of one late Borojo Gantayat, arrears of maintenance and other incidental reliefs. The said application for leave to sue as pauper was rejected by the trial court on the grounds that the petitioner omitted to set out the whole assets with good faith; that there was no cause of action for the suit in that by reason of previous litigation the present suit is not maintainable as the decision of the earlier suit will operate as res judicata under Section 11 Civil Procedure Code and further that the proposed suit is barred by limitation.2. The scope of enquiry in an application for leave to sue as pauper under Order 33, Rule 5 of 7 has been clearly laid down in a recent decision of the Supreme Court Vijai Pratap Singh v. Dukb Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC 941. The Court is enjoined to r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. There are two appellants in this appeal, namely, Gouranga and Dasha. They have been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Puri and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in S.T. Case No. 18/89 of 1992.2. The brief fact of the case is that the informant and his deceased brother Krushna had gone to their land for the purpose of harvesting paddy on 12.11.1991. Having harvested paddy, the informant proceeded ahead of his deceased brother. While they were passing through the land of one Laxman Parida, the deceased raised hue and cry 'HANI DELA HANI DELA'. When the informant looked back, he saw appellant- Gouranga dealing blows to his brother by means of a tangia and his brother appellant Dasha was standing near by and exhorting him to slay the deceased. When the informant rushed towards the deceased, the accused persons/appellants fled away from the spot. Soon thereafter, P.W.4, P.W.7, Daru Parida, Kasinath Swain and others came running t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori208
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The disputed properties belonged to one Hadibandhu Moharana who died in 1943 leaving behind Chanda, Dinabandhu and Hemalata who were respectively his widow, son and daughter. Chanda filed a suit for partition in forma pauperis against Dinabandhu and Hemalata. While the pauper application was pending. Dinabandhu died on 2-4-1964. His widow Umasankari (defendant No. 1-ka) and his two daughters Jyoshnarani (defendant No. 1-kha) and Sandhyarani (defendant No. 1-ga) and his son Satchidananda (defendant No. 1-gha) were impleaded as parties in his place. On 4-8-1964 Chanda died. Hemalata was transposed as the plaintiff, paid court-fees on the plaint and the application was numbered as T. S. No. 96 of 1965. On 2-3-1965 Hemalata amended the plaint to bring it in consonance with her claim. It is to be noted that in the original claim Chanda would have been entitled to half interest while Hemalata would have been entitled to 3/10th interest in the total property. On 30-10-1965 ...
Tag this Judgment!