Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2007Ori146
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. The main 'question on which both these appeals were argued is whether they are maintainable after the insertion of Section 100A in the Civil Procedure Code by its amendment in 2002.2. The material facts of the case are that both the appeals were filed by one Ramesh Chandra Das from the judgment and order dated 11 -10-2006 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. Two appeals being F.A.O. No. 274 of 2006 and F.A.O. No. 286 of 2006 were filed from the order dated 3-7-2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No. 223 of 1990. By that order the learned trial Judge removed Ramesh Chandra Das, the appellant before us as Receiver and also declined to appoint any one of the plaintiffs as Receiver. By that order, the learned trial Judge also discharged defendant No. 1, Kishore Chandra Das from Receivership. That part of the order discharging him as a Receiver was challenged by Kishore Chandra in F.A.O. No. 274 of 2006.3. The learned J...
Tag this Judgment!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 : 2000ACJ525; AIR2000Ori40
A. Pasayat, A.C.J. 1. As there was divergence in view, the matter has beenreferred to larger Bench and following questions have been referred for opinion:--(a) Whether the Tribunal has power to allow interest on the compensation awarded under Section 92-A of the Act in view of amendment to Section 110 CC of the Amending Act 47 of 1982? And (b) Whether the liability under Section 92-A can be saddled on the insurer even in a case where that liability other than a statutory liability is not covered by the policy of insurance? 2. The matter was under consideration in an appeal under Letters Patent arising out of an appeal against order of a learned single Judge dealing with scope and ambit of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'Act'). Factual aspects need to be noted in brief. Facts as noticed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench are as follows:--On 16-9-1983, jeep bearing registration number OSS 6481 was proceeding from Bargarh to Paikmal. After cro...
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 : 78(1994)CLT561; 1994(II)OLR625
A. Pasayat, J.1. Judgment passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Puri in O.S. No 31/83 of 1986/82 is the subject matter of challenge in both the appeals though on different grounds. The suit was filed by Jagadananda Mishra, appellant in F, A. No. 70 of 1993 purportedly Under Sections 13 and 14 of Hindu Marrage Act, 1955 (in short, the 'Act'), praying for dissolution of his marriage with Pravati, appellant. In F A, No. 245 of 1991, by passing a decree of divorce, on the ground that Pravati was of subnormal state of mind which was uncurable in nature. His case synoptically is as follows :He married Pravati on 4-2-1982, accrding to Hindu customary rites. After marriage he discovered that Pravati was suffering continuously from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that it would not be reasonably expected to live as husband and wife with her. She has incomplete development of mind and was suffering from psych- athic. disorder of mind, and, was possessed intelligence of a three...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori107; 15(1949)CLT78
Das, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C., by a friend of one Baishnab Charan Patnaik who has been arrested on 22nd August 1943 and kept in Cuttack Jail, complaining that the said arrest and the jail custody are illegal. For purposes of convenience, the said Baishnab Charan Patnaik may be treated as the petitioner and will be referred to as such in the following.2. The petitioner was originally detained under Section 2, Orissa Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1948, by an order of the Provincial Government dated 28th October 1948. The said order was due to expire on 38th April 1949. Before its expiry, however, the Provincial Government passed another order of detention against him on 20th April 1949 for a further period of six months, on substantially the same grounds as those on which the first order of detention was made. The validity of this second order of detention was challenged by an application made to this Court in Cr. Misc. Application No. 119/49. This...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2001(II)OLR657
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Chapter- VII, Rule 2(a) of the Orissa High Court Rules is at the instance of the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated August 7, 1995 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 27 of 1988, confirming the judgment and decree dated December 19, 1987 passed by the then Subordinate Judge, Chhatrapur in Title Suit No. 25 of 1984.2. The suit out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises was one for Specific Performance of Contract, filed by the present respondent No. 1 as the sole plaintiff. Bereft of all the unnecessary details, the short facts of the case as would be apparent from the averments made in the plaint are as follows :On November 7, 1983, A. Gopal Rao (Defendant No. 1) executed an unregistered plain paper agreement (Ext.l) in respect of the suit scheduled house site agreeing to alienate the same in favour of plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/-. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR278]; (2002)IILLJ229Ori; 2002(I)OLR336
A.S. Naidu, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order of the Hon'ble single Judge in O. J.C. No. 8236 of 1999 the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The case has a chequered career. Respondents 2 to 166 are the retired employees of the appellant, Steel Authority of India (for short, the 'SAIL'). Though initially, they were holding non-executive posts, by efflux of time, they were promoted to executive posts. They retired, on attaining the age of superannuation, prior to September 24, 1997, when the Payment of Gratuity Act was amended. The SAIL paid one lakh rupees to each of the respondents Nos. 2 to 166 towards their gratuity in consonance with Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Being aggrieved by such payment, applications were filed under Rule 10, sub-rule (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Rules before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Act (Respondent No. 1) inter alia, claiming tha...
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 : 2009(II)OLR361
S. Panda, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in CMA No. 514 of 2007 arising out of Execution Case No. 4 of 2007 rejecting the petitioners application on the ground that the petitioners had no locus stand to file petition under Section 151 of CPC as they were not parties to the execution proceeding nor was any decree going to be executed against them.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Opposite party No. 1-Sunanda Pattanaik along with one Sidhartha Pattanaik are the recorded landholders of Plot No.1202 measuring an area Ac.0.108 dec. under Khata No.1109 of Mouza Cuttack Town Unit No.22, P.S. Mangalabag. In the year 1994, Sidhartha Pattanaik tried to evict petitioner No.1 from the suit plot and failed. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 filed Civil Suit No.412 of 2003 against Sidhartha Pattanaik claiming that the entire suit land be...
Tag this Judgment!