Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-13-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Ori221; 54(1982)CLT265
ORDERJ.K. Mohanty, J. 1. This petition has been filed by Shri Mayadhar Nayak. the unsuccessful candidate who contested the election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from 23-Sukinda Assembly constituency in Cuttack District. The election was held on 31-5-1980. The petitioner stood as a candidate of S. U. C. I. party and secured 15,718 votes while the third respondent Sarat Rout, who stood on Congress (1) ticket, was declared elected securing 22,640 votes. The other candidates, namely, Prafulla Chandra Gharei (respondent No. 2), Sarat Chandra Patra (respondent No. 4), Sarangdhar Muduli (respondent No. 5). Haladhar Dhir (respondent No. 6) and Hrushikesh Rout (respondent No. 7) secured 8385, 3603, 630, 434 and 1957 votes respectively. The total number of valid votes polled was 53,367. 2. According to the petitioner, the nominations to fill up the seal from 23-Sukinda Assembly constituency were invited by the Returning Officer, Jajpur, on the basis of notification (Ext. 4) issued by the G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-21-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Ori114; 54(1982)CLT584
P.K. Mohanti, J. 1. These two appeals have been heard together and will be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. First Appeal No. 29 of 1970 and First Appeal No. 42 of 1970 have been preferred by defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff respectively against a preliminary decree for partition. 3. During the pendency of the appeals, the suit lands came under consolidation operation by virtue of a notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The suit lands cover both agricultural and non-agricultural lands. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in First Appeal No. 29 of 1970 contended that notification under Section 3(1) of the Act having been issued in respect of the village where the suit lands are situate, the suit has to abate as a whole. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in First Appeal No. 42 of 1970 on the other hand conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-13-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Ori54
Patnaik, J.1. Reference of these two applications, one by the father Nityananda (O. J. C. No. 262 of 1977) and the other by his sons Prakash Guru and others (O. J. C. No. 266 of 1977), has been made to resolve if the lands allotted to members of the erstwhile Hindu joint family on partition can be dubbed for the purpose of determining the ceiling area under Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. Admittedly Nityananda has three sons and three slaughters. Admittedly none of the sons was major and married on 36-9-1970, the appointed day under Section 37(b) of the Act. By a registered deed of partition dated 31-12-1965/13-1-1986, the lands in village Gunderpur were allotted to the shares of the sons and the daughters.3. A suo motu proceeding under Section 42 of the Act was started by the Revenue Officer against Nityananda and the draft statement was published on 30-9-1975 in O. L. R. Ceiling Case No. 98 of 1975. Nityananda filed his object...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jun-21-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Ori207; 54(1982)CLT67
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction having been dismissed and the decree passed by the trial court in his favour having been reversed by the lower appellate court, this second appeal has been filed.2. The appellant (hereinafter described as the plaintiff) asserted that the disputed house located in Nimchouri, Cut-tack belonged to one Durga Prasad Bha-gat, the father of respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter described as defendants 1 and 2), Durga Prasad had let out one room from the western side to the plaintiff on a monthly rental of Rs. 8/-. After the death of Durga Prasad, defendants 1 and 2 acknowledged the plaintiff as tenant and received rent from him. Bhikari Charan Behera, defendant No. 3, took on rent from Durga Prasad the room on the eastern side and at his own cost constructed a shed. Defendants I and 2 instituted H. R. C. Case No. 78 of 1969 against Bhikari Charan Behera for his eviction. The proceeding was in respect of the entire house (the rooms bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-05-1982
Reported in : 1982CriLJ1567
B.K. Behera, J.1. The appellant was the complainant and the respondent were the accused persons in the trial court, the respondent No. 1 Lingarai being charged under Section 494 of the Penal Code and the other respondents being charged under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code. The case of the appellant was that she married the respondent No. 1 in 1970, but during the subsistence of her marriage, the respondent No. 1 married the respondent No. 3 in the month of Magh of the year 1975 and the other respondents had abetted the commission of the offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of the Penal Code. At the trial besides examining herself as P. W. 1, the appellant had placed reliance on the evidence of four other witnesses. The case of the respondents was one of denial and false implication. They had not examined any witness on their behalf. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court came to find that the charges had not been established against the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-06-1982
Reported in : [1983]54STC322(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. The Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, has stated this case under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act'), at the instance of the State and has referred the following two questions for opinion of the court:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, is legally correct to consider M/s. Shree Shew Bhandar as not a fictitious dealer and whether it is legally correct to accept the declarations furnished by the said dealer to the present assessee amounting to Rs. 4,26,871.38 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, is legally correct to direct the assessing officer to scrutinise the declarations filed by the assessee granted by M/s. Shree Shew Bhandar and allow such of them as are in order?2. The brief facts are these :The assessee is a registered dealer carrying on business as a wholesal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-30-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Ori80
Das, J. 1. Petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the Majhiakhanda M. E. School in the district of Puri on 2-6-1970. His appointment was approved by the Inspector of Schools. The reconstituted managing committee of the school which appointed the petitioner as teacher was quashed by the High Court in O. J. C. No. 730 of 1970 and the old managing committee started functioning. The High Court directed the D. I. of Schools to disburse the salary of the teachers for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73. Another person was appointed as a teacher in place of the petitioner by the old managing committee which started functioning again after the quashing of the reconstituted managing committee. But the petitioner has not been paid his dues as directed by the High Court in O. J. C. No. 318 of 1973 (Annexure-B). Petitioner has, therefore, prayed for directing opposite parties 1 to 4 to pay up his entire salary as per order of the High Court and according to Government rules regarding direct payment of...
Tag this Judgment!