Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: orissa Year: 1998 Page 1 of about 41 results (0.107 seconds)

Feb 17 1998 (HC)

Bansidhar Mallick Vs. the State

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-17-1998

Reported in : 1998CriLJ1897

..... use of water of the said well which was taken exception of by the injured sukadev. in resolve the dispute one bhagyarathi swain (p.w. 1) was appointed as a mediator. while discussion was going on for settlement of the dispute between the parties, the accused entered into the house of the injured and assaulted his wife and daughter manju. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 1998 (HC)

Madhuchhanda Das Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : May-05-1998

Reported in : 87(1999)CLT141; 1998(II)OLR36

r.k. patra, j.1. by this application under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, the petitioner - madhuchhanda das challenges the validity of the order dated 21.7.1987 of the additional district magistrate, bhubaneswar in lease revision case no. 410 of 1986 (annexure-7) setting aside the settlement of land measuring ac. 1.000 with one golak majhi as well as the order dated 7.12.1994 passed by the additional tahasildar, bhubaneswar (annexure-6) rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for mutation of the land in her favour.2. as averred in the writ application, the tahasildar, bhubaneswar by order dated 15.7.1974 settled land measuring ac. 1.000 in plot no. 502 (renumbered as 502/1204) in khata no. 359 (renumbered as 255/64) located in mouza ogalapada with golak majhi (vide w.l.case no. 2198 of 1973). the lease-hold property was duly recorded in the r.o.r. in the, name of the said lossee (annexure-3). during the year 1982-83, the lessee-golak majhi died and his widow-mini bewa and his minor children succeeded to the property. as the widow and her children were in financial constraint, they moved the revenue officer-cwm-tahasildar under section 22 of the orissa land reforms act seeking permission to sell ac. 0.250 decimals out of the lease-hold land of ac. 1.000 in favour of the petitioner. their application was registered as misc. case no. 377 of the 1986. the revenue officer after making due enquiry by order dated 10.11.1986 (annexure-4) granted permission to the widow to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1998 (HC)

Kirtan Behari Acharya Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-10-1998

Reported in : 1998(II)OLR295

p.k. misra, j.1. plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing decision in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the plaint 'a' schedule property and for a direction to correct the tenant's ledger in favour of the plaintiff.2. briefly stated, the plaintiff's case is as follows.one mandar dehury had sold ac. 0.08 decimals of land in khata no. 28 in mouza dhananjayapur including the disputed land by registered sale deed dated 27.10.1941 to the plaintiff and delivered possession. the plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the disputed 'a' schedule property. subsequently, the plaintiff discovered that the disputed land had been recorded in the name of kapileswar mahadev, and the ex-proprietor of sukinda had submitted the tenancy ledger in the name of the aforesaid deity. the plaintiff enquired from the raja of sukinda who was the ex-proprietor and the latter had executed a registered nadabi patra on 23.5.1978 in respect of 'a' schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. the plaintiff produced the registered sale deed dated 27.10.1941 and the nadabi patra before the defendants for correction of the tenancy ledger, but to no avail.3. defendants 1 and 2 took the plea that the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties as the deity, kapileswar mahadev had not been impleaded. apart from taking other technical pleas such as bar of limitation, improper valuation and lack of proper notice, the defendants denied the allegations made in the original .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 1998 (HC)

Harihar Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settle ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-31-1998

Reported in : 1998(II)OLR495

a. pasayat, j.1. order passed by the commissioner of land records and settlement, orissa (in short, 'the commissioner') directing correction of settlement records in terms of the finally published record-of-rights (in short, 'ror') till a competent court corrects the entry, is the subject-matter of challenge in this application. the tahasildar was directed to correct the records accordingly, prayer of chema mohanty, opp. party no. 3 in that regard was accepted.2. the vital point involved is whether the tahasildar in exercise of power conferred under rule 34 of the orissa survey and settlement rules, 1962 (in short, 'the rules') framed under the orissa survey and settlement act, 1958 (in short, 'the act') can change or alter an entry in the finally published ror in a mutation proceeding, for any event which occurred prior to the date of final publication of the ror. reliance is placed by the petitioner on the instructions issued by the board of revenue (vide annexure-5) to contend that it is permissible.3. the background facts as set out by the parties essentially are as follows :natabar mohapatra, grand-father of petitioner no. 1 harihar, was recorded as intermediary of bramhottar niskar interest in sabik khata no. 112 of village bindhanima measuring a 6.24 in tigiria ex-state. the said interest vested under section 3a of the orissa estates abolition act, 1951, (in short, 'the oea act') on 16.4.1964. after death of natabar, on 11.5.1964 natabar's son rama chandra (father of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1998 (HC)

Brundaban Patnaik Vs. Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement and ors ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-21-1998

Reported in : 2001(I)OLR53

order1. heard shri behuria for the petitioner, shri k. patnaik. learned additional government advocate, for opposite parties 1 and 2 and shri n. panda for opposite party no. 3.2. the petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the correctness of the order dated 22.9.1997 of the commissioner, land records and settlement, orissa, cuttack in r.p. case no. 6774 of 1996 (annexure-1). by the impugned order the commissioner has directed the tahasildar to take up the case under para 17 (1) of the mutation manual and verify the sale deed of the petitioner to know his legal entitlements. the commissioner has observed that the plot in question be remeasured alongwith the suit hal plot no. 225 and the records be corrected if found necessary. the tahasildar has also been further directed to ignore the possession of any excess area, if found, without valid title.3. according to the petitioner, he has been in possession of land measuring ac. 0.050 decimals uninterruptedly without any hindrance from any quarter although in the registered sale deed no. 8486 dated 6.10.1970, the extent of the land was noted as ac. 0.041 decimals. in support of the petitioner's stand that he has been in possession of land in excess of the land mentioned in the sale deed, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to our notice the order of the asst. settlement officer dated 2.9.1983 passed in objection case no. 1873/330 which was filed at the instance of one bijoy kumar pattnaik. in the said order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 1998 (HC)

Smt. Kamala Kumari Bohara Vs. Harekrishna Ghadei and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-07-1998

Reported in : AIR1998Ori196

p.k. misra, j.1. defendant no. 1 is the appellant against a confirming decision. plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed o.s. no. 182 of 1979 for declaration that the transfer of the disputed property is void and in the alternative, to allow the plaintiff to re-purchase the disputed land.2. plaintiff is the son of one bhikari ghadei. defendant no. 1 is the alienee from gurbari, widow of bhikari ghadei and defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters. it is claimed that the disputed land is the ancestral property of bhikari ghadei who expired in the year 1971. thereafter, on 18-1-1974 plaintiffs mother gurubari alienated the disputed property for rs. 100/- in favour of defendant no. 1 by executing a sale deed for herself as well as on behalf of her minor son, the plaintiff. on receipt of notice in mutation case no. 5012/76, the plaintiff came to know about the illegal allegation by his mother and thereafter filed that suit on 14-12-1979 claiming that he is not bound by the sale deed (ext.a). it was further claimed that the sale deed was also not binding in respect of his mother's share and alternatively, it was prayed that the disputed property which was homestead land should be re-conveyed in favour of the plaintiff on refund of consideration.3. defendant no. i in her written statement pleaded that ext. a, the sale deed, had been duly executed for legal necessity and the plaintiff as well as defendants 2 and 3 are bound by the same.4. the trial court decreed the suit on a finding that due .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1998 (HC)

Kay Vee Aar Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Apr-06-1998

Reported in : 86(1998)CLT614; 1998(II)OLR539; [1998]111STC112(Orissa)

pradipta ray, j.1. the writ petitioner is a company incorporated under the indian companies act, 1956. it was initially registered as a medium scale industrial unit with the director-general of technical development (hereinafter referred to as 'd.g.t.d.'). it started commercial production on november 30, 1987. government of india by a notification no. s.o. 232(e) dated april 2, 1991 enhanced the investment limits in fixed assets in plant and machinery for the purpose of categorising an industry as small-scale industrial unit. by the said notification option was given to the registered medium scale industries falling within the enhanced limit of investment to register themselves as small-scale industrial units or to continue as medium scale unit. in view of the said notification petitioner-company opted for registering itself as a small-scale industry with effect from september 28, 1991. the petitioner-company as a medium scale industry was admitted into the benefit of industrial policy resolution, 1989 (in short, 'i.p.r. 1989') and was given exemption from liability to pay sales tax for a period of five years from april 1, 1990. the state level empowered committee constituted under the i.p.r., 1989 in its 5th meeting held on march 20, 1995 recommended that the newly converted small-scale industrial units would be given benefits as admissible to small-scale industrial units for the prescribed period reduced by the period during which incentive was enjoyed as medium scale unit. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1998 (HC)

Manishri Refractories and Ceramics Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-16-1998

Reported in : [1998]111STC61(Orissa)

susanta chatterji, j. 1. the petitioner manishri refractories and ceramics private limited has filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs :'(a) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated july 21, 1993 (annexures iii-a and iii-b) holding them to be illegal ;(b) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing opposite party no. 2 to issue the certificate of deferment of payment of orissa sales tax and central sales tax for the expanded portion of the industrial unit in form 'c' ;(c) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to opposite party no. 2 to refund the sales tax already collected under duress since october 5, 1992 ;(d) to pass/issue such other writ/order and/or direction as deemed just and proper in the interest of justice and equity ; and(e) to allow the writ petition with costs.'2. the petitioner has in fact challenged the orders vide annexures iii-a and iii-b to the writ petition made by the sales tax officer, cuttack-i, central circle, cuttack. it transpires from the impugned orders that the petitioner-dealer is an industry which manufactures refractory bricks. it was set up on august 20, 1971 and it started its trial production with effect from april, 1972. it had applied for deferment of payment of tax under the orissa sales tax act with regard to its expanded part and submitted the following documents :(i) application in form 'a' ;(ii) form 'e' issued by the director of industries, orissa, cuttack ;( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 1998 (HC)

Dr. Pranab Mohapatra and ors. Vs. State of Orissa, Represented Through ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Dec-23-1998

Reported in : 1999(I)OLR292

a. pasayat, j.1. these writ applications along with large number of others have been filed questioning legality of the process of selection of candidates for prosecuting post-graduate studies in the government colleges of the state. as grounds of challenge and rebuttal are essentially common, they are disposed of by this judgment which shall govern each one of them.2. for selection of candidates for post-graduate courses in the government medical colleges of orissa, prospectus was issued for 1998. similar prospectus simultaneously was issued for 1999. examinations were held for both the years and petitioner in each case appeared at the examinations, but was not selected.3. in chandan mishra and ors. v. governor, m.b.b.s./ b.d.s. selection board and ors. : 77 (1994) clt 624, one of us (pasayat, j.) had referred to shakespeare's classic expression in othello 'chaos is come again'. the observation was made in the context of admission to m.b.b.s./b.d.s. courses. year after year large number of candidates make grievance about improper questions/ model answers indicated. the problem has become chronic, and as time passes the contamination has spread to admission to post-graduate courses. no wonder large number of candidates have alleged that they are victims of 'examination malady and chaos', prayer is made for a declaration that the entrance examination is legally dead. the successful ones, the state of orissa, and the convenor of the examination submit that notwithstanding the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1998 (HC)

Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-19-1998

Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)18; 85(1998)CLT372; 1998CriLJ2191

orderp.g. tripathy, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant the learned addl. standing counsel.2. these two petitions under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the code') have been filed challenging legality and correctness of the order dt. 3-11-1997 passed by the s.d.j.m., bhubaneswar in g.r. case no. 867 of 1997 and this common order will abide the result in both the criminal misc. cases.3. petitioners are accused in g.r. case no. 867 of 1997 of the court of s.d.j.m., bhubaneswar. cognizance of the offences under sections 420/120b, i.p.c. has been taken on the allegation of cheating to the tune of lakhs of rupees in connection with a mining dealing. on the basis of the information lodged by the complainant police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner maitfi shukla and on that basis on 13-5-1997 cognizance was taken. complaint filed a protest petition in which an inquiry was conducted under section 202 of the code and vide order dated 21-8-1997 cognizance for the aforesaid offences was taken against both the petitioners. after taking cognizance, order was passed by the learned s.d.j.m. to 'issue summons to both the accused' fixing 30-9-1997 for their appearance. before the process could be issued, complainant filed a petition to issue n.b.w.a. against the petitioners on various grounds including the ground that they may tamper with the evidence and that they would .....

Tag this Judgment!


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