Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2001(II)OLR497
Pradipta Ray, J.1. Informant Nrusingha Kumar Panda has filed this Criminal Revision against the judgment and order dated January 30. 1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ganjam- Gajapati at Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 275 of 1993 whereby the accused-opp. parties 1 to 3 have been acquitted from all the charges framed against them.2. The prosecution story in brief is :Informant is the owner of about 1 (one) acre of agricultural land in village Panada while his cousin Simanchal Panda is the owner of about 1/2 acres of adjacent land. There was a dispute between the accused Pandab Sahu and Simanchal Panda over the title and possession of the land claimed by Simanchal. On April 18, 1993 at about 9.00 a.m. the informant sent some labourers to cultivate his land. Cultivation of informant's land was over at about 12.30 p.m.. the labourers engaged by the informant told the informant that they had been paid money in advance by Simanchal to cultivate his land and they were going to cultivate the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1995(I)OLR118
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Grant of maintenance to opposite parties on disposal of an application made under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, 'the Code') is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision application.2. Filtering out unnecessary details, case of parties as presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baripada (in short, 'JMFC') is as follows :An application under Section 125 of the Code was fried by opposite parties before the learned JMFC inter alia stating that opp. party No. 1 is legally married wife of the petitioner, and opp. party Nos. 2 and 3 were born through their wed-lock. While opp. party No. 1 was staying at Bhubaneswar during her second pregnancy she was brought to her father's house near Baripada on 29-11-1385 by the petitioner, and though he promised to take her back after delivery, he failed to do so. When the opposite parties went to the house of petitioner at Bhubaneswar, they found that the petitioner was stayi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2006(108)FLR1029]; (2006)ILLJ1018Ori
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application calls in question the legality of the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa in Annexure- 11 under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') imposing damages to the tune of Rs. 61,114/-.2. The petitioner is a Government of Orissa Undertaking and basically a construction establishment carrying on different project works awarded by the State Government, Central Government and other private organisations at different places. In the year 1998 the petitioner was awarded with two projects at Damanjodi under two separate agreements. The said work were supervised by the senior Managers I and II in respect of Package No. 1 and Package No. 2 respectively and the said Sr. Managers applied for allotment of separate EPF code numbers for their respective packages for administrative convenience. However, the senior Manager-II who ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1987Ori264
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, Union of India representing the South Eastern Railway, against the decree of the trial court for a sum of Rs. 79,556.40 passed as damages for nondelivery of certain Mohua flower consignments, raising some interesting questions of law.2. The facts :The plaintiff despatched nine consignments of Mohua flower from Khariar Road Railway iStation to Seoni under nine separate railway receipts in the month of May, 1970. Each consignment was loaded in one full wagon-load consisting of 321 bags, each weighing 224.70 quintals. The consignments were booked to 'self and, according to the plaintiffs case, they were despatched under sale orders to M/s. Jaiswal Trading Corporation, Seoni, subsequently added as defendant No. 2, @Rs. 8,839.60 p. per wagon. The relative documents including the railway receipts were accordingly sent through the Bank for collection of the money from the concerned party. The defendant-Railway Administration, however, d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : I(2005)ACC539; 2006ACJ585; 2004(I)OLR292
A.S. Naidu, J. 1. These Letters Pattent Appeals are filed by M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by a common judgment dated 3.5.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in M.A. Nos. 200 and 222 of 1998. Both the Misc.Appeals arose out of a claim case filed by respondent No. 1 before the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (S.D.) Berhampur, being M.A.C. No. 424/94 (190/94) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are that : On 21.2.1994 at about 6.30 A.M., a Bus bearing registration number OAG 7927 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant on the main road near village Karapada thereby causing severe injuries on his person. He was admitted to the hospital for treatment and subsequently he filed the claim case, claiming Rs. 1,80,000/- towards compensation for the physical handicap disability and agony sustained by him due to the accident and Rs. 20,000/- towards ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : I(2002)DMC248
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This appeal is preferred under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act by the unsuccessful defendant wife (appellant in the present appeal) being aggrieved by the judgment dated October 5,1996 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 186 of 1991.2. Dillip Kumar Pattnaik, the plaintiff-husband (respondent in the present appeal), filed Civil Proceeding No. 186 of 1991 praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the document styled as 'Bibaha Bandhan Agreement' bearing Registration No. 703 dated 24.11.1986 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Cuttack. is a fraudulent and fabricated one and that he had never married the defendant-wife, Namita Mohanty and the latter is not his married wife as well as for other consequential reliefs.3. The short facts which are necessary for appreciating the case are as follows :The plaintiff-husband is an employee of the Postal Department and at the relevant time (1986) was posted at Athagarh. The fathers of both th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR211
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. The legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff Baidhar Barik are the appellants before this Court against a confirming judgment. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that one Jagannath Barik was the owner of the suit lands and after his death the same devolved on his two sons, Baikuntha and Bauli. The aforesaid two sons remained joint and the settlement record of rights indicate such jointness. Thereafter, there was an amicable partition between both the brothers and the suit lands fell to the share of Baikuntha. While in possession of the suit lands Baikuntha died leaving behind his second wife Kuturi. Kuturi who succeeded to the suit property after death of her husband Baikuntha alienated some portions of her share in favour of one Michhu Mani and her minor son Adikanda Panda. Hema Dei, the daughter of Baikuntha through his first wife in connivance with her maternal uncle also transferred the same lands in favour of the defendants. Due to subsequent transfer made by Hema a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR316
Bimala Prasad Das, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 8.5.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in Money Suit No. 107 of 1991 thereby holding that the promissory note is insufficiently stamped and directing the plaintiff to impound the document by making payment of deficit stamp duty along with penalty by the next date.2. The ground on which the challenge has been made to the aforesaid order is that the non-mention of the words 'to the order or bearer on demand' is irrelevant and thus this promissory note will come under category No. (iii) of Article 49 of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'the Act') and is thus properly stamped with 40 paise revenue stamp. It is also further alleged that the applicability of Clause (b) of Article 49 of the Act is erroneous. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the order dated 31.7.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur wherein it was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1976Ori163
R.N. Misra, J.1. Not far away from the Town of Sambalpur and within that district lay the impartible estate of Kolabira until it was abolished by the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, in November, 1952. Succession to this estate was governed by the rule of primogeniture. At the close of the Nineteenth Century one Chintamoni Singh was the proprietor of this estate. He died on 21-12-1903 leaving behind a son, Nruplal Singh who was then aged about 17, a daughter and two brothers. The estate was taken over by the Court of Wards for management and was released to Nruplal on 15th of January, 1910. During the period the Court was in management, Nruplal had been given some schooling as also training in estate administration.2. Sometime in the year 1939, Brusabhanu (defendant No. 1), a young man of the locality, came into employ-ment of the ex-proprietor. It is stated that he first served as a cleaner and soon became the proprietor's driver and was very much in his confidence. Nruplal was suf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : II(2003)ACC625; 2004ACJ1411; (2003)ILLJ920Ori; 2003(I)OLR33
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a declaration that third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is ultra vires of the Constitution of India and for a further declaration that despite availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Act the petitioner has a legal right to invoke the writ jurisdiction and for quashing the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Annexure-3.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a share cropper and earns his livelihood by taking on lease small parcels of land belonging to the different owners of his locality and by cultivating the same for specific season or periods. He had employed one Gadan Chhatria alias Suna on casual basis as and when the necessity arose for help in the matter of cultivation in respect of the land taken on lease. The term of employment was purely casual, intermittent and on daily basis. During the year 1989 th...
Tag this Judgment!