Case Number: CRLMC No. 1887 of 2022
Date of Decision: 6th February 2023

Rabindra Kumar Jena, a former Member of Parliament from Balasore constituency allegedly hatched a conspiracy with the principal accused Prashant Kumar Dash and others to lure the general public to make deposits with Seashore group, which promised higher interests and multiple other benefits in return.

A sum of Rs.1.75 Crores was allegedly diverted to the petitioner in 2011 illegally out of the money received through such public deposits by the principal accused and Seashore Group of Companies.

However, refuting such charges, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that there was no material to reveal how and when local support was garnered by the petitioner and also no proof was forthcoming regarding meeting of minds between the petitioner and other accused persons to dupe the public.

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to explain as to what kind of relationship he shared with the principal accused or with his group of companies that prompted the companies to give such a huge amount of personal loan to the petitioner.

Therefore, it was of the view that nonexplanation of such nexus inevitably gives rise to the presumption that the money was credited in favour of the petitioner for the illegal money circulation business in Balasore area. Accordingly, the Court did not grant relief to the petitioner by quashing the pending criminal proceedings against him.

Case Number: MACA No. 385 of 2019
Date of Decision: 26th June 2023

The Court was hearing an appeal filed the insurer, i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. challenging its liability to pay compensation to the respondents on account of death of the victim which happened due to a vehicular accident inside the premises of a factory. 

In this case, the victim was a driver of a truck which was brought to the concerned factory premises for unloading. When his truck was standing inside the premises and he was taking rest at the back side of the truck awaiting his turn to unload his vehicle, another truck came in a negligent and rash manner and ran over him.

Therefore, the moot question which arose for consideration is that when the accident happened inside the premises of a factory, whether it would be construed as a ‘public place’ as per the definition provided under Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court referred to various decisions of the Orissa High Court as well as other High Courts and came to a definite conclusion that though the factory, where the said accident occurred, is a private factory but the its premises had access of vehicles for business purpose and the deceased was driver of one of such vehicles.

It further observed that the definition of ‘public place’ as given under the MV Act has to accorded a wide connotation to include any place to which the members of public use and where they have a right of access no matter whether the right of access is permissive, limited, restricted or regulated.

Taking into account the facts of the case, the Court was of the view that when the entry of a transport vehicle is permitted in the factory premises, it can be safely concluded that such premises constitute a ‘public place’ for the purpose of grant of compensation and liability on the part of the insurer in terms of Section 147 of the MV Act.

Case Number: RSA No. 62 of 2019
Date of Decision: 6th January 2023

The Court was hearing an appeal from the decision of the District Judge, Khurda wherein first appeal against the decision of the lower Court was dismissed on the ground of limitation as there was a delay of around 7 years and 291 days in preferring appeal.

Respondent No.1 filed a civil suit praying to declare him as the son of Kulamani Behera subsequent to the latter’s death and thereby, prayed to replace the name of Rajkishore Das with Kulamani Behera as his father in his school certificate.

For the said purpose, the Respondent No.1 impleaded his natural mother as the sole defendant. As no objection was raised by the mother, the suit was decreed in favour of the Respondent No.1 declaring that his father’s name has been wrongly mentioned as ‘Rajkishore Das’ in certificate which was corrected as ‘Kulamani Behera’.

Kulamani had ancestral as well as self-acquired properties. After his death, when the matter of partition arose, it came to the notice of the Appellant that the Respondent No.1 had obtained a decree in his favour through a civil suit declaring him as the son of Kulamani Behera.

Subsequently, the Appellant obtained the certified copy of the decree and filed the regular first appeal before the District Judge. However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was delay of around 7 years and 291 days.

The Court held that the term ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be understood with proper spirit and purpose in the context of the facts of each case where the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the parties relating to action, inaction and negligence are relevant considerations.

The Court noted that the Respondent No.1 did not implead his brothers, including the Appellant, as defendants in the suit where he was declared as the son of Kulamani Behera. Therefore, his intent is clear that he wanted to get the suit decreed behind the back of the Appellant and other concerned parties. Thus, the Court condoned the delay and allowed the appeal.

Case Number: FAO No. 306 of 2022
Date of Decision: 18th January 2023

The Court was hearing an appeal against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal had refused to condone delay in presenting application filed by the National Aluminium Company (NALCO) for recovery of surplus freight charges paid to the East Coast Railway.

The NALCO had booked consignments of private rail wagons for transportation by railways.  The dispute arose when it came to the knowledge of the appellant, i.e. NALCO that though consignments were booked for transportation through a longer route, the railway in fact transported through the shorter route. However, it charged the appellant for the longer route. Thus, the appellant filed an application before the Tribunal for recovery of the additional charges.

The Tribunal rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that though the consignments were booked in the year 2016, the application was filed only in the year 2021 and therefore, there was a delay over the prescribed period of limitation, i.e. three years.

Also, an objection was raised by the Respondent, i.e. the railway that the mandatory notice required under Section 106 of the Railways Act was not supplied by the NALCO to the railway and in absence of such notice, the claim application cannot be held to be maintainable.

However, referring to a previous judgment of the Orissa High Court, the Court was of the opinion that additional charges received by the railway cannot be termed as ‘overcharge’ as appears under Section 106 and therefore, giving notice to the opposite party is not mandatory for making an application maintainable for recovery of additional charges.

As far as question of limitation was concerned, the Court was of the considered view that though the first cause of action arose in April, 2016 but it continued till March, 2021 as there was an agreement for transportation for the aforesaid period.

Therefore, it was held as the cause of action continued on repetition, the prescribed limitation has not expired as the claim application was filed in December, 2021. Accordingly, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the claim.