Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2009Ori46; 2008(II)OLR725:AIR2009Orissa46
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment of August 6, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 386 of 2007 is assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal. In the FAO an order of September 9, 2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, FTC-Ill, Bhubaneswar in Interim Application No. 12 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 498 of 2004 appointing a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'CPC) was assailed.2. The question of maintainability of the LPA against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court was raised in course of hearing of the LPA. It was pointed out at the Bar that there had been two sets of directly conflicting judgments of Division Benches of this Court, inasmuch as in the case of V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patl and Anr. 2006 (II) OLR 349, a Division Bench had taken the view that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in view of amendment of Section 100-A CPC against the judgment/order of a learned Single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 102(2006)CLT479; 2006(II)OLR349
M.M. Das, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 9.9.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in FAO No. 298 of 2005.2. Dipika English Medium School Society, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act being represented through its Principal Secretary has filed Civil Suit No. 131 of 2005 which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela. It appears from the prayer made in the plaint that the plaintiff has claimed for a declaratory decree declaring that the defendants 1 to 10 are not entitled to interfere in the management and administration of the plaintiff's school and further declaring that the constitution of the Managing Committee of the said school amongst defendants 1 to 10 on 25.7.2005 is illegal and unlawful and not binding on the plaintiff. A consequential relief in the form of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 10 from interfering with the management and administration of the school and from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1957Ori42
Mohapatra, J. 1. This is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution against a decision dated 16th November 1955 of this Court in O.J.C. 401 of 1954. The petitioner alleges that he started business In January 1943 at the instance of the ex-Ruler of Mayurbhanj. The business was running in the name of Indian Chemical Products, the main purpose being manufacture of industrial alcohol and essential oils.It was agreed between the petitioner and the ex-Ruler of Mayurbhanj that each would contribute a moiety towards the capital of the business and each would have to suffer half the loss, if any, in the business. The petitioner further alleges that after the merger of the State of Mayurbhanj within the State of Orissa, the business had to be closed as the petitioner had suffered considerable loss.Under the provisions of the Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949, the petitioner laid his claim against the State of Mayurbhanj on 24th March 1949 before the Sub-div...
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 : 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 : 1999(I)OLR46
P.C. Misra, J.1. Appellants in this appeal were plaintiffs in a suit (O.S. No. 126/75-1) in the Court of Munsif, Bhadrak. The suit was dismissed on merits by judgment dated 12.12.1977 passed by the learned trial Court against which they preferred Title Appeal No. 2/78 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak. The said appeal was posted to 3.4.1980 for hearing on which day the Advocate appearing for the appellants filed an application praying for an adjournment on the ground of illness of their Advocate of Cuttack, who had been engaged to argue the appeal. The appeal was adjourned to 7.5.1980 on which day the appellants also applied for adjournment on the very same stand. The court reluctantly allowed adjournment on payment of cost of Rs. 100/- and the appeal was posted to 9.5.1980 for hearing. On that day also adjournment was applied on the ground of continuous illness of Advocate of Cuttack. The learned lower Appellate Court did not allow any further adjournment and dismissed the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori73
Patra, J.1. This is an appeal against the appellate judgment of R.N. Misra, J. in First Appeal No. 63 of 1964 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jey-pore in a suit for recovery of possession of the plaint 'A' schedule properties, mesne profits and cancellation of the Deed of Exchange Ext. A dated 26-3-1957.2. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are sons of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs constitute a joint family and are the owners in possession of the plaint A schedule lands measuring A.22.36 decs. situated in mouza Barijhola. Out of these Lands, they were in khas possession of plot Nos. 80, 87, 90 and 98 with an area of 6.11 acres. The remaining lands bearing plot Nos. 292. 29-3 and 294 were with the the Jeypore Sugar Company, Limited under possessory mortgage for a period of 12 years commencing from 11-5-1955. One Rajguru family who are not parties to this litigation own lands in village Pitamahal which was an inam village. That inam estate was abolished under the Ori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1976Ori52
S.K. Ray, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal from the confirming decision of a single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit, under Article 4 of Orissa High Court Order 1948, read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.2. The appellant filed his suit in the court of the Sub-Judge, Puri for a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee of Radhaballav Math with all its endowments located in the town of Puri being the nominated successor of the late Mahant Shri Radhacharan Das who died in 1963.Undisputedly, Radhaballav Math is an institution of Numbark cult. Its last Mahant was Radhacharan Das who was recognised by all public authorities including defendant No. 1, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner). The plaintiff alleges that the late Mahant validly initiated him as his Chela according to customary and usual religious rites prevailing at the Math and the sect to which the institution belonged, and also exe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2006(II)OLR344
ORDER1. Heard further argument on the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal as the preliminary issue and the same is decided in the following manner.2. Before dealing with that point of law, we may indicate that the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed challenging to the judgment delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in F.A.O. No. 270 of 2003. That was an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C') against the order granting temporary injunction to the plaintiffs-respondents under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C, vide Interim Application No. 12 of 2003 arising in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2003 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rairangpur. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has confirmed to that order of injunction and in the result dismissed the appeal. As against that judgment, this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.3. At the outset, Mr. Indrajit Mohanty, learned Counsel appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1982Ori57
B.N. Misra, J.1. This is the first suit filed in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. Reena Padhi, widow of the late Rabindranath Padhi, is plaintiff No. 1 Rinku plaintiff No. 2 and Rajat plaintiff No. 3 are respectively the minor daughter and son of plaintiff No. 1 and the late Rabindranath Padhi. Minor plaintiffs 2 and 3 are represented in the suit by their mother plaintiff No. 1 who has filed an affidavit that her interest is not adverse to that of her minor daughter and son. The owners and parties interested in the ship 'Jagdhir' are described as defendant No. 1 and Messrs Great Eastern Shipping Company, Limited having their registered office at Mercantile Bank Building, 60 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay are defendant No. 2. In the plaint both 'action in rem' and 'action in personam' are combined and pleaded against the defendants. However, Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted to the Court that for the present he was not pressing for an action in rem. The...
Tag this Judgment!