Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: orissa Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 38 results (0.064 seconds)

Apr 09 2003 (HC)

Mahendra Mahanta and ors. Vs. Smt. Tarini Dei and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Apr-09-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Ori180; 96(2003)CLT182

..... has advanced an important argument that even if the plaintiffs are held to have an interest in the joint family properties, but since it has been already divided at the mediation of villagers, therefore, the suit for partition is untenable in law. it is stated that the partition had taken place in the year 1976 and in evidence thereof a partition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 2003 (HC)

Benumadhab Padhi Mohapatra Vs. State

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-28-2003

Reported in : 2004CriLJ505; 2003(II)OLR538

..... clearly. she stated before them that nobody had tortured her and that she had burnt herself as her parents did not take care of her. the priest who was the mediator in the marriage was examined as d.w. 4 and a local gentleman who had attended the marriages was examined as d.w. 5. both of them had clearly stated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2003 (HC)

Sundar Majhi Vs. Lukhi Majhiani and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-16-2003

Reported in : 95(2003)CLT604; 2003(I)OLR295

b. panigrahi, j 1. the unsuccessful plaintiff in t. s. 19 of 1978 of the court of sub-ordinate judge, rairangpur (now civil judge, senior division) has filed this appeal against the dismissal of his suit claiming right, title, interest and possession for declaring him to be the adoption son of late chuna majhi.2. it is the appellant's case that late chuna majhi of bada gobra was the recorded owner of 'b' schedule properties of the plaint. he had three wives, namely, manda, dangi and lukhi. manda died leaving behind her three daughters, namely, parbati (defendant no. 2), sanja and ganga. after the death of manda, chuna married again to dangi (defendant no. 5), but no child was born through her. therefore, he married again to defendant no. 1 lukhi. the further case of the appellant was that through lukhi two more daughters were born, namely, maya and luli, who have been arrayed as defendants 3 and 4 respectively. since chuna had no male issue through any of his wives, therefore, he proposed to take the plaintiff as his adopted son who was none other than his agnetic nephew. rama majhi, the natural father of the plaintiff gave him in adoption which was accepted by chuna majhi. the aforesaid adoption was performed on a day in the month of magha of 1953. immediately before the adoption ceremony, chuna with his two wives went to his cousin brother rama's house of village jhalak. in presence of village gentlemen of gobra and jhalak villages and also village padhan giving and taking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2003 (HC)

Bauribandhu Mohanty Vs. Raghunath Panigrahi and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jun-27-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Ori215; 2003(II)OLR199

b. panigrahi, j.1. plaintiff in title suit no. 29 of 1979 of the court of subordinate judge, sambalpur has filed this appeal against the reversing judgment and decree passed by the appellate 'court by which his suit for declaration of title, confirmation and/or recovery of possession and for permanent injunction was dismissed.2. it is alleged in the plaint that the suit property once belonged to bhimsen panigrahi, who sold the same to one kisanlal sharma for consideration. thereafter the vendee kishanlal sharma was in possession of the suit land in his own right and got it mutated in his name. kishanlal sharma left rairakhol in the year 1954 and before his departure he orally transferred the suit land to the plaintiff for which he claimed to have been in possession of the suit land since 1954 onwards and had mutated the land in his favour. it has been further alleged that the plaintiff constructed a house over a portion of the suit land and has been living therein. the defendants having no matter of right, title, interest and possession of the suit land had created disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, therefore, he filed the suit for the aforesaid relief.3. the respondent-defendants have, inter alia, alleged that the defendants have never sold the land to kishanlal sharma nor the said kishanlal sharma had orally sold the suit land to the plaintiff. it has been alleged in the written statement that bhimsen panigrahi agreed to sell the entire extent of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 2003 (HC)

Narendra Kumar JaIn and anr. and Rajkishore Agarwal and anr. Vs. Basud ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jun-19-2003

Reported in : 96(2003)CLT308

p.k. tripathy, j.1.the above noted four civil revisions though not noted in the order-sheets, were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment which shall abide the result in each of the civil revisions.2. opposite party members are the plaintiffs in title suit nos. 23, 22, 24 & 25, all of 2000 and petitioners in the above noted civil revisions are the respective defendants. in such suits the father and other brothers of the plaintiffs also figured as defendants. all the aforesaid suits were instituted and are pending in the court of civil judge (sr. division), angul. land vide plot no. 4724 of khata no. 814 in mouza turang measuring a total area of ac. 0.28 decimals is the subject matter of dispute in title suit nos. 23 and 22 of 2.000. in title suit no. 23 of 2000 the extent of the disputed area is ac.0.08 decimals whereas the remaining 20 decimals is the disputed area in title suit no. 22 of 2000. land in plot no. 4725 of khata no. 521 in mouza turang measuring a total area of ac. 0.07 decimals is the disputed plot. an area of ac. 0.05 decimals, i.e., ac.0.02 and 1/2 decimals each is the disputed area in title suit nos. 24 & 25 of 2000. khata no. 814 has been recorded in the name of the father of the plaintiffs measuring a total area of ac. 6. 63 decimals (vide 38 plots). all such land have been recorded as agricultural land. khata no. 521 with respect to plot no. 4725 has been recorded in the name of one banchhanidhi das with note of forcible possession .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2003 (HC)

Board of Trustees, Paradip Port Trust Vs. Managing Director, Industria ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-20-2003

Reported in : 95(2003)CLT739

b. panigrahi, j.1. the plaintiff in title suit no. 213 of 1996 of the court of the civil judge (jr. division), kujang has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in r.p.f. case no. 44/2002 whereby and whereunder the first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. the plaintiff-paradip port trust has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent no. 1, managing director, industrial infrastructure development corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'idco') from coming over to the suit schedule land and from interfering with the plaintiff's possession in any manner whatsoever. 2. the plaintiff is a statutory body established under the major port trust act, 1963. the government of orissa decided to establish a harbour at confluence side of river mahanadi and accordingly, the paradip port trust was established some time in 1962 at paradip. in different phases under the strength of several notifications, the suit land along with the other lands were proposed to be acquired for creation of paradip port trust. it is stated that the suit land was situated in mouza-bhitargarh referring to different sabik khatas comprising an extent of ac. 119. 22 dec. the plaintiff, therefore, has claimed possession over the aforesaid land continuously and uninterruptedly without any interference from any quarter. subsequently, by an act of the government all assets and liabilities including all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 2003 (HC)

Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee and anr. Vs. Narayan Mohapatra

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Mar-27-2003

Reported in : 96(2003)CLT29

b. panigrahi, j.1. this appeal is directed against reversing judgment and decree passed by the learned district judge, puri in title appeal no. 14/37 of 1984/83 dated 6th may, 1985 whereby and whereunder the plaintiff's suit for declaration of his right to place 'bhogas' on 'bada' bad chhamu kona panti' was decreed.2. the case of the plaintiff-respondent is as follows :the plaintiff is one of the recognised suara sebaya'ts of lord jagannath temple, puri who claims to have hereditary right to place his bhogas in earthen pots on the badabad chhamu kona panti to offer the deity bada thakura balabhadra jew. according to the prevailing practice, bhogas are usually offered daily at least four times which are known as saka! dhupa, bhogamandap, dwiprahara dhupa and sandhya dhupa. except the time of offering bhogamandap the sebayat like supakars, suaras and mahasuaras used to keep their cooked food in handis (earthen pots) at a specified area within sanctum sanctorum which is locally known as 'bhitara pokharia' in front of 'ratna singhasan' of the lords balabhadra, subhadra, jagannath and sudarsana. before offering-bhogas in the 'bhitara pokharia' the concerned puja pandas demarcate the places where the bhogas of four deities are to be placed every day by stone dusts, locally known as 'muruja'. they also divide the areas into small patches indicating the places where the different suaras/ supakars are to place their handis containing bhogas and the said places are called 'badas' and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 2003 (HC)

State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Dibakar Pati and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-17-2003

Reported in : 95(2003)CLT381

pradip mohanty, j. 1. in this case, the plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration for right, title and interest over the suit tank. the trial court has found against the plaintiffs, but in appeal, the judgment of the trial court was reversed. hence, the state of orissa and its functionaries have filed the second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court.2. the claim of the plaintiffs is founded as follows :in 1898 'shaunria' settlement operation, the suit tank situated in mouza rahani, under khata no. 2, plot nos. 87, 88 and 89, measuring ac. 1.97 decimals of kamakhya nagar tahasil was recorded in favour of abhimanyu paramaguru and nanda mohapatra. they are the ancestors of the plaintiffs. the tank was excavated by their ancestors. the said tank is otherwise known as 'pati ghara tank, as the family members of pati family were exclusively using the said tank. the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants had renovated and improved the tank through the technical adviser of government agency. in 1923-24 the tank was recorded in the name of the government without knowledge of the pati family, but the plaintiffs and the pro-forma defendants continued to possess the suit tank as of their right and they were never dispossessed by the government. on 3.5.1983 the plaintiffs filed a petition before the settlement officer, kamakhya nagar, which was registered as misc. case no. 568 of 1983, to record their names, but they were directed to move the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2003 (HC)

Ghanashyam Lenka and Soubhagya Chandra Das Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-28-2003

Reported in : 95(2003)CLT703

l. mohapatra, j.1. criminal revision no. 295 of 1997 has been filed challenging the order dated 10.4.1997 passed by the learned s.d.j.m. cuttack in g. r. case no. 196 of 1990 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to recall the order taking cognizance. c.r.l.m.c. no. 17 of 2002 has been filed challenging the order of the learned s.d.j.m., cuttack in the aforesaid g.r. case dated 21.2.1994 taking cognizance of offences under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-a. 420, 109, 119, 120-b and 34 of the penal code. 2. so far as the criminal revision no. 295 of 1997 is concerned. it appears that after the learned magistrate took cognizance in respect of the offences mentioned above in the aforesaid g. r. case the petitioner and one zamil ahmed khan filed applications separately for recalling the order taking cognizance on the basis of the decision of the apex court in the case of k.m. mathew v. state of keraia, reported in 1992 (5) ocr 66. the petitioner in his application for recalling the order taking cognizance stated that during the period from 1.4.1979 to 7.4.1982 he was working as the additional tahasildar, cuttack sadar tahasil, cuttack and was entrusted with the c.l. r. cases. estate abolition cases certifiate cases as well as collection of revenue. according to him, the tahasildar was directly in-charge of the lease, encroachment, mutation and khasmahal lease cases. it was pleaded before the learned s.d.j.m. that the petitioner was in no way involved in preparation of forged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2003 (HC)

Orissa Small Scale Industries Association and anr. and Orissa Young En ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jul-04-2003

Reported in : 96(2003)CLT364; 2003(II)OLR334

a. k. patnaik, j. 1. in these two writ petitions, the four associations, namely, orissa small scale industries association, utkal chamber of commerce and industry limited, orissa young entrepreneurs association and orissa assembly of small and medium enterprisers have challenged the decision of the state government in the school and mass education department to place orders for purchase of compact desk-cum-bench (dual desk) with organisations other than those who are rate contract holders under the state government. their case in the writ petitions is that in the industrial policy resolution, 2001 (for short, 'the i.p.r.') of the government of orissa, it is clearly stipulated in paragraph 24.5 that the state government departments and agencies under the control of the state government will purchase the rate contract items from the rate contract holder/ small scale industry at the price fixed without inviting tenders. their further case in the writ petition is that in appendix-6 of the orissa general financial rules (for short, 'the o.g.f.r.') vol. ii there is also a stipulation that in respect of items of stores for which rate contract has been entered into by the director of export promotion and marketing, purchase of such items by all departments of government, quasi-government agency and state owned corporation should be only from sources with whom such rate contracts have been entered into. hence, the government could not have placed orders for purchase of dual desk with .....

Tag this Judgment!


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