Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1975)IILLJ259Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a driver in the employment of the Orissa State Transport Service, a Government undertaking. He along with one Golak Chandra Naik, the cleaner of the vehicle which the petitioner was driving was suspended from service with effect from 4-11-1965 on the ground that they were involved in an accident case and had been charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted in the original Court, on 2-1-1967. On the following day, he was discharged from service on that ground. The conviction was upheld in appeal, but this Court by judgment, dated 28-11-1967 acquitted the petitioner of the charges. As the petitioner was not taken back into service by revoking the order of discharge, the petitioner made a representation on 7th of January, 1970. On 13-4-1970, the Divisional Manager (opposite party No. 2) passed the following order:.The appellant was discharged from service consequent upon his conv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1975CriLJ850
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. The petitioner along with other accused persons has been committed for trial to the Court of the Sessions Judge Cuttack. and that case has been registered in that Court as S. T. No. 65-C of 1974 On beinp moved bv the petitioner the learned Sessions Judge bv his order dated 12-9-1974 has released the petitioner on bail 'awaiting further orders in the matter from the Supreme Court and till the disposal of Special Leave petition (Criminal) No. 861 of 1974'. and has also imposed some conditions therein to be observed by the petitioner during the period he continues on bail bv the said order. After the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge this petition under Section 439, Criminal P. C. 1973 has been filed in this Court. Mr. B. M. Patnaik. the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Sessions Judge while granting bail to the petitioner was not iustified, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to limit the scope and' duration of the said order on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori173
ORDERS.K. Ray, Actg. C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' application in revision to quash the order of the Subordinate Judge, Baripada dated 15-12-1973 setting aside an exparte decree passed in a partition suit at the instance of the defendants in that suit. The grounds for setting aside the ex parte decree were that defendants 1 and 2 who were looking after the case on behalf of all the defendants were lying ill on the date of hearing of the suit which was posted to 16-3-1973. Evidence was adduced in support of the ground of illness. Ultimately the Subordinate Judge in the last paragraph of her order has stated as follows:-- 'The petition for setting aside the ex parte decree does not deserve to be allowed on account of the circumstances discussed above. However, as the suit property is worth Rs. 16,000/-, the petition will be allowed and ex parte order will be set aside provided (he petitioners pay Rs. 100/- as cost and compensation to the opposite parties-plaintiffs by 21-12-1973.' On the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori84
R.N. Misra, J.1.The defendants are in appeal against the reversing judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Koraput at Jeypore in a suit for recovery of the price of goods supplied.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they had a shop at Koraput and the defendants were taking cloth on credit from time to time. A sum of Rs. 695.79 paise was due from the defendants by 20th of July, 1965. In spite of demand, the amount was not paid. Therefore, after notice, the suit was filed on 31st of October, 1966, claiming the principal sum together with interest.3. The defendants took the stand that they had made certain credit purchases, but payments had been made and not only the plaintiffs' dues were cleared, but some money was still owing to the defendants on account of excess payment. The suit was the outcome of malice atthe instance of one Kesharichand Umedmal as the defendants started buying their requirements from one Pratapchand, a business adversary of Umedmal.4. The learned Subordinat...
Tag this Judgment!