Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-03-1986
Reported in : AIR1986Ori255
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from 86 Malkanagiri (Scheduled Gaste) Constituency.2. The case of the petitioner stated briefly is that his father late Nara Karanaya belonged to the Scheduled Caste of Domba (Dombo) community. He converted himself to the Christian religion. He married a second wife who was a Hindu through whom the petitioner was born. After the second marriage late Nara Karnaya ceased to profess the Christian religion and adopted the Hindu religion. He performed all functions and ceremonies and followed all customs and practices connected with the Hindu religion. Therefore, late Nara Karnaya, his second wife and the petitioner professed Hindu religion, were treated as such and belonged to Domba scheduled caste community. The petitioner had obtained a scheduled caste certificate (Ext. 2) from the Tahasildar, Motu.In the general election of the year 1985 for the Orissa Legislative As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-25-1986
Reported in : AIR1986Ori247; 1986(I)OLR510
P.C. Misra, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of money said to have been advanced by the State Bank of India (Respondent 1) under a cash credit agreement from the present appellant (Defendant 2) and the present respondent 2 (defendant 1).2. The plaintiff's case in short is that the first defendant was carrying on the business in ready-made clothes, hosiery goods etc. in Berhampur town and had approached the plaintiff-Bank for a loan accommodation under a cash credit account for the purposes of his business. The second defendant (the present appellant) offered to stand as a guarantor for repayment of the loan by defendant 1. On 20-4-1970 the plaintiff-Bank granted a loan accommodation to defendant 1 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under a cash credit account. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- was secured by the first defendant by executing a promissory note on 20-4-1970 in favour of the second defendant as the guarantor for the loan and the latter duly endorsed the said promissory not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-08-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Ori234
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. How at times justice eludes a party in the present justice system is best illustrated by this case in which, even though, the opposite parties obtained an order of restitution of property in Civil Revision No. 363 of 1981, decided on 24-8-1984 by this Court, have yet not been able to obtain redelivery of possession thereof.2. A short account of, facts will be useful to adjudicate upon the present controversy, Sobhan Khan was the owner of the schedule 'A' property of the plaint which consists of a house in Cuttack town. He left three sons -- Kalu, Kurban and Aju. Kurban was issueless. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of Yunus, son of Kalu and petitioners 2 to 6 are his sons. Opposite Parties 1 to 5 are the sons of Aju and opposite parties 6 to 8 are his daughters, Kurban and Aju sold their share in the suit house in favour of Kalu by a registered sale deed dated 29-5-1952 for consideration. On the same day, Kalu executed an agreement in favour of Aju permitting him...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-09-1986
Reported in : 61(1986)CLT673; 1986(II)OLR13
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Judgment-debtor is the petitioner in this Civil Revision against the order rejecting his prayer for stay of the execution proceeding in exercise of the power under Order 21, Rule 29, Code of Civil Procedure during pendency of the suit seeking the relief to get rid of the effect of the decree.2. Judgment-debtor was a tenant in respect of a house in Cuttack town. On the application of the decree-holder for evicting the judgment-debtor from the house on the ground of his confide requirement of the same, the House Rent Controller passed the order of eviction which was confirmed in appeal Judgment-debtor has filed Title Suit No. 150 of 1985 for a declaration that the order of eviction passed in the house rent control proceeding under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is without jurisdiction and is a nullity and for a permanent injunction restraining the decree-holder from evicting him from the disputed house under such a void...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-15-1986
Reported in : 1986(II)OLR391
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.2. That case of the plaintiff shortly stated is that the suit land with an area-of 16.48 acres appertaining to Sabik Khata No. 242 corresponding to Hal Khata No, 379 situated in mouza Budhibar described in greater detail in the plaint schedule originally belonged to Sk. Akbar Mohammed, Jagirdar and proprietor of the estate which vested in the State Government in 1963 by virtue of the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. While Sk. Akbar Mohammed was in possession of the suit land included in his Anabadi holding as Nij-chas, he leased out the same in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of an unregistered deed of lease on 10-4-1935 on receipt of Salami of Rs. 1648/- and on an annual rent of Rs. 16.50 and delivered possession thereof. Since then the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land on his own right as an occupancy raiyat by raising...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-22-1986
Reported in : 1986(II)OLR350
B.K. Behera, J.1. These two revisions between the same parties involving common questions of facis and law have been heard together and will be governed by this common order. As petitioner in both the revisions assails the orders passed by the ieained Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, rejecting the contentions raised on its behalf that the two decrees passed in favour of the opposite party by making the awards passed by the Arbitrator rules of the Court are not legally executable having been passed without jurisdiction.2. Being the owner of the godowns located in the city of Berhampur in the district of Canjam, the opposite party gave the godowns on rental basis to the petitioner on stipulated rnonthly rent by two separate agreements containing an arbitration clause to be operative in the event of any dispute between the parties. The petitioner entered into possession of the premises in 1973. Notice was given by the opposite party to the petitioner raising certain disputes and for referenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-25-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Ori88
P.C. Misra, J. 1. The petitioner who, with a view to securing the degree of Doctorate in Philosophy in Arts had registered himself in the Utkal University and had submitted a thesis and appeared in the viva voce test, has filed this writ application with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to publish the result of his examination within a period of time to be specified and to quash any order or direction issued by the Chancellor in this behalf.2. Petitioner has alleged that he hadpassed his M.A. Examination in Oriya in 1stClass from Utkal University in the year 1979and had registered himself in Utkal Universityin December, 1981 to prepare a thesis on 'A Comparative Study on Hawthorn the American Novelist and Fakir Mohan, an Oriya Novelist', with Dr. Gopal Chandra Misra, M.A.,D. Litt. Professor and Head of the Post-Graduate Department of Oriya, SambatpurUniversity, as his guide. According to theprovisions contained in Regn. 7 of Chapt. IX,Utkal University...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-04-1986
Reported in : AIR1988Ori18
P.C. Misra, J.1. In all these writ applications, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ quashing the report dt./- 20-12-84 of the Commission of Inquiry and for quashing the adverse comments/findings against them in the said report with a further prayer to issue an injunction against opposite parties Nos. 1, 3 and 4 from taking any action on the basis of the said report of the Commission of Inquiry. All these petitioners except M/s. E. C. Bose & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in O.J.C No. 1884/85) and Shri Bhikari Charan Swain (petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1701/85) are senior members in the Orissa Cadre of Indian Police Service. The petitioner M/s. E. C. Bose & Co. Pvt. Ltd. carries on business of stevedoring in various Ports of India including in Paradip. Petitioner No. 2 in the said case is the Director of the Company (petitioner No. 1) Petitioner Bhikari Charan Swain is a member of the Orissa Police Service and was posted as Subdivisional Police Officer at Paradip.2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-28-1986
Reported in : AIR1988Ori4; 63(1987)CLT86
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this civil revision are as follows : -- On 14-5-1966, Sadhavani Patrani obtained a decree for recovery of possession of a double storied building in Jeypore town. She executed the decree in Execution Proceeding No. 35 of 1966. During its pendency, she expired on 20-11-1968. The petitioner filed an application on 7-1-1969 to be substituted in place of the deceased decree-holder as her legal representative alleging that Sadhavani executed a Will in his favour and registered it on 23-12-1959 and a Codicil on 25-9-1967 apart from adopting him as a son. The judgment-debtors objected to the said application. Enquiry was conducted on the application of the petitioner and one witness was examined on commission. At the stage the objection of the judgment-debtors that they are real successors was directed by order dated 16-1-1970 to be registered as a Misc. Case under Section 47, C.P.C. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows : -- '....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-14-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Ori82; 63(1987)CLT658
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. This appealarises out of a proceeding for compensationon account of an accident in which thehusband of respondent 1 was killed and isdirected against the order of a learned singleJudge of this Court (reported in 1978 Ace CJ61 : (AIR 1978 Orissa 138)).2. The significant question of generalimportance that falls for our consideration inthis case, is as to whether the widow of avictim will cease to be entitled to the compensation under the provisions of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1959 (for Short 'the Act') in the event of her remarriage.3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :In the afternoon of 12-6-1969, a Station Wagon bearing registration number ORC 3442 belonging to the State of Orissa in which the deceased Surendra Kumar Nayak, the husband of respondent 1, was travelling from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar with other passengers met with a head-on collision with a truck (number ORU 1053) on the National Highway resulting in the death of three passengers including Surendr...
Tag this Judgment!