Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-21-1981
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!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-02-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Ori70; 51(1981)CLT371
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. Each of the petitioners was a registered Homoeopathic practitioner within the meaning of Section 29 of the Orissa Homoeopathic Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act) and was given appointment as doctor for a term in a dispensary as would appear from the order of appointment appended to the respective writ applications. The term of appointment was extended by subsequent orders from time to time, but each of them was later informed that service was being terminated from a specified date. The writ applications have been filed on the footing that the termination was under a misapprehension that the petitioners were not qualified to continue as doctors in dispensaries in view of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (Act 59 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act), and though similarly placed doctors continued in service and have even been absorbed as regular employees under the State Government, the petitioners have been discriminated again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-22-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Ori268
B.N. Misra, J.1. This appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 219 of 1970 filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the Second Munsif, Cuttack, The prayer of the plaintiff was that defendants 1, 2 and 3 should be permanently injuncted from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and pro forma defendants 4 and 5 over the disputed plot No. 1408 and the five mango trees standing thereon.2. The plaintiff's case is that the disputed plot No. 1408 appertaining to Khata No. 167 of village Kuliagaon stands recorded in the names of Shyam Swain, Dhaneswar Swain and the plaintiff. Shyam Swain has gifted his 1/3rd share in the suit plot in favour of pro forma defendant No. 4 by a registered deed of gift in the year 1964. Dhaneswar Swain died leaving behind him his widow, pro forma defendant No. 5 as his only heir. It is claimed that the plaintiff and pro forma defendants 4 and 5 are the full owners in possession of the disputed plot No. 1408. There were seven old mango trees standing on the disp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-22-1981
Reported in : 53(1982)CLT251; (1982)IILLJ198Ori
B.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioner in O.J.C. No. 412 of 1976 was serving as a Pharmacist when he was served with the order of compulsory retirement (Annexure-1) dated February 13, 1976 and the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 475 of 1976 had been serving as Lady Health Visitor when she was compulsorily retired from service by the order (Annexure-1) passed on the same day. Both these orders have been passed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under the first Proviso to Sub-rule (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' which reads :71. (a) Except as otherwise provided in the other clauses of this rule the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, except a ministerial servant who was in Government service on the 31st March, 1939 and Class IV Government servant, is the date on which he or she attains the age of 58 years subject to the condition that a review shall be conducted in respect of the Government servant in the 55th year o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-21-1981
Reported in : 1982CriLJ1627
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. Challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order dated 10-8-1981 made in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 65 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the District Magistrate (opposite party No. 2) and grounds of detention as given in Annexure-1 were communicated on 12-8-1981.2. The five grounds were provided to the detenu in accordance with the requirements of Section 8 of the Act. Shortly stated, the grounds are:(i) On 9-2-1981 at 6 P. M. the detenu along with one Pradeep Kumar patnaik alias Chandu armed with gupti entered into the college campus of Nirakarpur College and forcibly took away a Lambretta Scooter No. APV 7079 belonging to Sri B. K. Murty, Head of the Department of physics of the said College from his residence in spite of protests and entreaties, The detenu found that the scooter was not in working order and carried it to a mechanic for repairs. The owner of the scooter alon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-05-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Ori108; 53(1982)CLT375
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner who secured a loan of Rs. 10,000/- under the Middle Income Group Housing Scheme has sought shelter under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings in Certificate Case No. 11 (DIO) of 1970 (Certificate Case No. 69 of 1965-66) and certain orders of attachment and sale of the property in the said certificate proceeding.2. A proceeding under the OrissaPublic Demands Recovery Act, 1962 was ptarted on a requisition sent by theDistrict Loans Officer, Cuttack. The certificate was drawn up and filed on 17-12-1966. Notice was issued to the certificate-debtor. Though there is some controversy regarding service of notice, that question is not relevant, Order dated 14-9-66 shows that in execution of distress warrant, moveables belonging to the petitioner were attached and sale of such articles was directed to be held on 10-10-66. The proceeding thereafter went through a chequered career. It is gathered f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-18-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Ori43; 53(1982)CLT173
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner was admitted as a student of Regional Engineering College, Rourkela (hereinafter mentioned as 'R. E. College') in Aug., 1973. He passed the Preliminary Science (Engineering) Examination and I. Sc. (Engineering) Examination of Sambalpur University and joined the 1st Semester of the B. Sc. Engineering course. While he was studying in the 7th Semester in 1976-77, he received the order dated 18-8-1976 (Annexure 2) of the Principal, R. E. College wherein it was mentioned :'The admission of Sri Amiya Kumar Swain (Present Roll No. 35-7th Semester) to this College with Roll No. 158 in the Academic Session 1973-74 is hereby cancelled as he has managed to take admission into the 1st Semester of the B. Sc. Course by producing false mark-sheet. It may be mentioned that the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar vide their notification No. 13983/UAP dated 7th Aug., 1976 have also cancelled his pre-professional trimester results of 1972-73 exam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-14-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Ori160; 52(1981)CLT416
Das, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of judgments overruling the objections of the appellant and making the award of the arbitrator rule of the Court in matters of reference made to the arbitrator by the court.Plaintiff-respondent is a contractor and he entered into a contract with the State of Orissa for construction of high-level bridge over river Rusikulya on National Highway No. 5 in the district of Ganiam. The work was to be completed within thirty months from the date of the written order. As the work could not be completed within time, the contractor made claims which were referred to an arbitrator. 2. In M. A. No. 249/80, the facts are that a sum of Rs. 12.14 lakhs being the difference between the estimated cost and the tendered amount of the contractor for item No. 35 of the tender was to be deducted from the running bills up to the construction of deck level in phases and when the contractor would start pre-stressed concrete superstructure work, the said deducted amount woul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-27-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Ori206
K.N. Misra, C.J.1. Plaintiff, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with its registered office at Calcutta, entered into a contract with the State of Orissa through its officers for supply of materials meant for use in construction of projects and/or buildings of the State. Mutual rights and obligations were stipulated in the contract. When the security furnished by the plaintiff was forfeited and penalty was levied against it on the plea of breach, it filed a suit on 23-8-1965 for declaration that the order of forfeiture and the levy of penalty were liable to be set aside and for a direction that the amounts withheld be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that it was the obligation of the defendants to provide a motorable road to the siphon site where delivery and stacking of materials were to be made. The defendants were under obligation to provide the stacking site too. They having failed to perform their part of the contract, the plaintiff could not make th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-11-1981
Reported in : 51(1981)CLT513
N.K. Das, J.1. One Birakishore Samal died on January 17, 1975. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 applied for the grant of a succession certificate in respect of the provident fund, gratuity, family pension, etc., as well as a sum of Rs. 4,000 covered by two insurance policies. Respondent No. 1 claimed to be the married wife of the deceased and respondent No 2 his adopted son. The appellant was arrayed as opposite party No. 3 in the misc. case as the mistress of the deceased. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that they were entitled to the dues admissible to the deceased under the contributory provident fund, family pension as well as the insurance policies left by the deceased. They also claimed that they were entitled to the gratuity payable to the deceased as he was an employee of the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. According to them, the appellant was not the legally married wife of Birakishore but was his mistress and taking advantage of this, was making attempts to get the dues of ...
Tag this Judgment!