Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: orissa Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 41 results (0.037 seconds)

Nov 20 1992 (HC)

Dhusasan Samal Vs. the State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Nov-20-1992

Reported in : 75(1993)CLT515; 1993(I)OLR116

..... minati mentioning about her tonure for non-payment of dowry. the evidence of pw 3 thus cannot be accepted on its face value. pw 4 is said to be the mediator in the marriage of the appellant with minati. he has not stated anything about the allegation that minati was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for or in ..... the statement of pw 1. he has further stated that on refusal to give dowry the talk of marriage failed and after about fifteen days, at the instance of the mediator (pw 4) the talk was again resumed in the village of the appellant when pw 1 agreed to give cash of rs. 2000/- and a 'palanka' and other articles. the ..... mediator who was examined as pw 4 has stated nothing about the discussion over payment of dowry in the house of the appellant. in the cross-examination he has clearly stated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1992 (HC)

BipIn Bihari Das Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jul-03-1992

Reported in : 74(1992)CLT830; 1993CriLJ245

..... stated in the affidavit that there are 43 other cheating cases connected with the present case and therein attempt is being made to seize the relevant documents. of the two mediators, viz. prasad sundhi and sankarsan palti, prasad sundhi has been examined and sankarsan pati is yet to be examined since he is not available at koraput and is reported to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 1992 (HC)

Dulana Dei Alias Dolena Dei Vs. Balaram Sahu and Two ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jul-28-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Ori59

b.n. dash, j.1. this appeal by the plaintiff is against a reversing judgment.2. admittedly, narayan prasad patnaik and umasankar patnaik (respondents 4 and 5 who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit) were the owners of the suit land measuring 68 decimals in plot no. 1653 under khata no. 101 of village iswarpal, samil kadelipal and they executed a registered sale deed dated 6-5-1971 (ext. 1) for a consideration of rupees 3,000/- in favour of bela bewa, the mother of the plaintiff-appellant dulan dal. thereafter, they cancelled the said sale deed on 30-4-1973 by ext. 1 on the ground of nonpayment of consideration and re-sold the suit land in favour of respondents 1 to 3 (defendants 3 to 5) by a registered sale deed dated 4-2-1977 (ext. 8). there is also no controversy that bela bewa died in 1976.3. the case of the appellant-plaintiff is that before execution of the registered sale deed in favour of her mother, there was a written contract for sale of the suit land on 12-3-1971 between the vendors and the vendee on payment of rs. 1,700/- by the vendee to the vendors and after execution of such contract for sale the vendors delivered possession of the suit land to the vendee on 5-5-1971. it is her further case that her mother continued to remain in possession till her death whereafter she herself remained in possession and that since after execution of the registered sale deed ext. b in their favour the respondents 1 to 3 (defendants 3 to 5) created disturbance in their possession .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1992 (HC)

Padartha Amat and anr. Vs. Siba Sahu

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Sep-16-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Ori92

s.c. mohapatra, j.1. this civil revision arises out of a judgment under section 6 of the specific relief act.2. plaintiff filed the suit claiming that 'a'schedule property was under ownership and possession of one purna chandra bhukta of village maheswarpinda who had sold sale deed for a consideration of rs. 200/ and delivered possession thereof. while he was possessing the same after purchase by raising crops, defendants forcibly dispossessed him on 11-6-1983 and sowed paddy on it. plaintiffs protest remained unheaded and defendants threatened to assault him. plaintiff applied for mutation on 23-4-1988 but the same has been refused. accordingly, being dispossessed within six months, the suit isfiled for recovery of possession. 3. defendants in their joint written statement stated that suit land was in possession of purna chandra bhukta. however, the same was not sold to the plaintiff by purna. they denied assertion of possession by plaintiff since 1969. they claimed to be in possession of the suit land six years prior to 1988 when it was lying vacant as government land. mutation is also claimed to have rightly been refused.4. plaintiff examined five witnesses and produced certified copy of the sale deed as ext. 1. defendants examined three witnesses and produced two reports of the revenue supervisor in support of their case. on appreciation of these materials, trial court held that the case of the plaintiff that he is dispossessed within six months of the filing of the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1992 (HC)

Kanduni Dei and ors. Vs. Ananta Charan Mohapatra

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-27-1992

Reported in : 1992(I)OLR491

a. pasayat, j. 1. during pendency of this revision application filed by petitioners, eleven in number, an application under section, 391 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short 'the code') was filed for acceptance of additional evidence. a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party to the application.2. background facts in which the revision came to be filed before this court are to the following effect.the opposite party herein filed a complaint inter alia on the ground that his deceased father had purchased 62 decimals of land in plot no. 1403 of khata no. 204 in the year 1964 from one rama chandra naik, his father and after him, he was in peaceful possession of the same. in the year 1984 he had raised various varieties of paddy on the disputed land. on 21-11-1984 the accused persons cut and removed the unripe crop notwithstanding protest by the opposite party complainant.the accused persons took the plea that the disputed land was in cultivating possession of petitioners 1 and 3, who had raised crop in the year 1984. it was their case that since they had raised the crop they had cut and removed the same.the learned subdivisional judicial magistrate, banki (in short 'the sdjm') found that there was no material to sustain the plea that the removal of paddy was in furtherance of a bona fide claim of right to property. therefore, he found the petitioners guilty under section 379, indian penal code, 1860 (in short 'ipc') but acquitted them of the charges .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 1992 (HC)

Lucy Narona Vs. Raghunath Jew Bije

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jun-29-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Ori153; 74(1992)CLT463

p.c. misra, j.1. the defendant in o.s. no. 85 of 1980-1 of the court of additional subordinate judge, pud is the appellant in this appeal against the reversing judgment passed by the second addl. district judge, puri in title appeal no. 74/83 of 1983/82. the suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the present appellant from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land and from cutting and removing the trees standing thereon.2. the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no. 1 is a deity and plaintiff no, 2 is the head of the institution and marfatdar of the deity. the suit properties are said to be originally belonging to l. g. naronah who acquired the same by permanent lease on 5-1-1950 from one durga charan jagdevray and thereafter he sold the property to plaintiff no. 1 through plaintiff no. 2 as its marfatdar by a registered sale deed dated 18-10-1965 on receipt of proper consideration pursuant to which the plaintiff was put in possession and he has been possessing the same all through. the disputed plot according to the plaintiffs was a vast sandy area near the sea and was lying waste. after purchase plaintiff no. 2 claims to have reclaimed the said area by raising casuarina and cashew nut plantation as a result of which it became highly productive giving good profits. alternatively the plaintiffs have claimed that in the event it is found that the suit land does not appertain to their purchased area, they having been in possession thereof for more than the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1992 (HC)

Yakub Mahammed and ors. Vs. Revenue Officer-cum-tahasildar and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Sep-24-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Ori174

s.c. mohapatra, j.1. these two applications uner article 226 of the constitution arise out of a ceiling surplus proceeding under the orissa land reforms act.2. petitioners are sons of ibrahim. a suo motu proceeding was initiated against ibrahim for determination of ceiling surplus land. ibrahim pointed out that there was partition among him and his sons. accepting the partition, tahasildar dropped the proceeding. when petitioners came to know that notice has been served on their father ibrahim to surrender the ceiling surplus lands on 31-12-1989, they made enquiry to find out that tahasildar reopened the proceeding and without notice to petitioners, has finalised the proceeding disbelieving the partition of 1954 on the ground that the deed is not registeredand in 1954 petitioners were minors. accordingly, prayer has been made to quash the order dated 17-10-1976 in annexure-3 series and notice dated 31-12-1988 (annexure-4).3. mr. d.p. sahu, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that proceeding could not have been reopened behind the petitioners without notice to them in absence of power of review and factually also tahasildar was not correct to disbelieve the petitioners. mr. sahu has relied upon the subsequent mutation of lands in names of the petitioners accepting the partition. mr. sahu further submitted that in case a proceeding was finalised in the year 1976, there was no acceptable reason why twelve years after, ibrahim was called upon to surrender the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 1992 (HC)

Manmohan Rout (and After Him) Sundari Devi and ors. Vs. State of Oriss ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : May-11-1992

Reported in : 74(1992)CLT454; 1992(II)OLR529

g.b. pattnaik, j.1. the orders of the consolidation authorities under annexures 3, 4 and 5 are the subject-matter of challenge in this writ application. the disputed land is a tanr measuring ac. o. 67 decimals appertaining to plot no. 1861 under major settlement khata no. 269 corresponding to c. s. record-of-rights plot no. 1665 under khata no. 182. the petitioners' case is that the disputed land was under the ex-intermediary under anabadi khata and in 1944, the said ex-intermediary leased out the property in favour of petitioners 1 and 2 and father of petitioners 3, 4 and 5 as well as one madan rout. the said madan rout transferred his interest in favour of the petitioners by means of a registered deed of gift and since the date of the lease, the petitioners are using the tank for agricultural purpose by utilising the water of the tank for raising various vegetables in their lands. according to the petitioners' case after the vesting of the intermediary rights, the landlord submitted the ekpadia to the revenue authorities mentioning the names of the petitioners to be the lessees in respect of the disputed land. the revenue authorities in pursuance of the said ekpadia prepared the tenant's ledger wherein the petitioners' names were recorded and thereafter the petitioners continued to pay rent and became raiyats under the state. but notwithstanding the same, in 1977 major settlement record of-rigrus, the tank was recorded as 'rakshit' though in the c. s. record-of-rights of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 1992 (HC)

Mahapratap Rudra Das Vs. Pravabati Das

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Dec-16-1992

Reported in : II(1993)DMC54

a. pasayat, j.objection to the maintainability of an execution proceeding before the family court, cuttack having been negatived by the learned judge, family court, cuttack, this appeal has been filed.1. skeletal facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows :pravabati das (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') moved the learned sub-divisional judicial magistrate, sadar, cuttack (in short, the 'sdjm') for a direction to grant maintenance under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'cr.p.c.'). she claimed to be the legally married wife of mahapratap rudra das (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant'). according to her, appellant had sufficient means but he neglected and refused to maintain her. she claimed to have married the appellant as back as in the year 1954 according to hindu rites. claim of respondent was resisted by the appellant, mainly on the ground that there was no marriage as claimed learned sdjm allowed prayer for maintenance and directed the appellant to pay maintenance @ rs. 150 per month from the date of application i.e 24-4-1989. a motion was made before learned judge, family court, cuttack alleging appellant's failure to comply with the order granting maintenance without sufficient cause. appellant was asked to show cause as to why prayer of the respondent for action under section 125(3), cr.p.c. was not to be allowed.2. appellant filed objection to the show cause notice, primarily challenging .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1992 (HC)

Banka Das, Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Sep-15-1992

Reported in : 1993CriLJ442; 1992(II)OLR395

a. pasayat, j.1. even before the ink in certain judgments has become dry, divergence of view has surfaced and doubt regarding their correctness has arisen, relating to certain provisions of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the act). though only one question was referred to the full bench for adjudication, members of the bar pleaded that several other questions need a fresh look, and therefore, we have primarily considered the following questions :(1) whether a court of session can, during transitional period as provided in section 36-d of the act take cognisance of an offence under the act as a court of original jurisdiction without the accused being committed to it for trial ?(2) whether a remand beyond a period of fifteen days as indicated in section 36-a(1)(b) is permissible ?(3) whether the conditions in section 37 of the act relating to giant of bail override the effect of the proviso to section 167(2) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'code'), and/or whether the said proviso to section 167(2) of the code has no application to an accused under the act ?(4) whether the procedures prescribed in sections 42, 43, 44, 49, 50 and 57 are mandatory in nature and any non-compliance of the requirements contained therein renders the proceeding vitiated ?(5) whether the compliance or otherwise aspect of the requirements under the sections indicated at question (4) can be considered at the time of considering a .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //