Orissa Court November 1988 Judgments
Tata Refractories Limited and anr. Vs. Nrupamani Ping and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT385; (1993)IIILLJ824Ori
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. These six writ applications at the instance of the employer have been filed challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 20th of August, 1988, and the said order of the Tribunal has been annexed as Anncsurc-1 to each of the writ applications.2. Opposite party No. 1 in each of the writ applications filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') impugning the order of termination passed by the employer in contravention of Section 33 of the Act. It is not necessary for us to state facts in detail and it is an admitted fact that the order of termination of opposite party No. 1 in each of the cases was passed by the employer while Industrial Dispute Case No. 56 of 1986 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. The workman made the allegation in the application under Section 33A that the Employer terminated the service in contravention of Section 33 of the Act. The Empl...
Tag this Judgment!Bhabendra Dwibedi Vs. Pravakar Mishra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1841
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In an application for special leave under Section 378(4) Cr. P.C. by the complainant against an order of acquittal the main point urged is the validity of the trial of the accused persons to be acquitted which is alleged to be in contravention of Section 210 Cr. P.C.2. Section 210 Cr. P.C. reads as follows:210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.(2) If a report is made by the investigating...
Tag this Judgment!Jamu Majhi Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-24-1988
Reported in: 68(1989)CLT58; 1989CriLJ753
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. Having been convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code for having intentionally killed his agnetic uncle Guti Majhi and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, the appellant has moved this Court in appeal.2. The appellant had mortgaged his land to Guti for four years. After lapse of three years, the appellant however did not allow Guti to enjoy the land but mortgaged the same with another person. Guti thereupon insisted that the appellant should either return the money or allow him to enjoy the land for one more year. On account of this there ensued frequent quarrels between them. On 7-6-1982, Guti had been to the weekly market at Sumerpadar and indulged in a drinking bout and got drunk, returning to the village he went to the house of the appellant and demanded of him to return the money or permit him to possess the land for one more year. The appellant refused to concede either, whereupon, it is alleged, Guti abused the appellant in filthy language. This led the app...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Annada Prasad Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ori130; 67(1989)CLT318
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner serving as Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre, Kotpad in the district of Koraput, made an application to take the entrance examination for selection of candidates for undergoing Two Year P.G. Course in one of the Government Medical Colleges 'in the State pursuant to admission notice which stipulated that applications in the prescribed form should reach the Convenor-Principal, M.K.C.G. Medical i College, Berhampur by 30-5-88 during office hours by registered post only. He posted his, application on 27-5-88 at the post-office located in the campus of M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur. Though the post-office is located at a distance of 100 yards from the office of the Convenor, the application sent by registered post was received in the office of the Convenor on 1-6-88. His application was treated as not to have been received within the time stipulated, i.e., by 30-5-88. Hence, , he was not allowed to take the examination.The petitioner has fi...
Tag this Judgment!Andhra Bank, Bhanjanagar Vs. Susanta Kumar Mishra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ori168; 67(1989)CLT214
ORDERP.C. Misra, J. 1. The plaintiff in Money Suit No.6/87 of the court of Subordinate Judge, Bhanjanagar whose application in M.J.C. No. 7/88 for restoration of the suit dismissed for non-payment of the court-fee was rejected is the petitioner in this revision. Admittedly the plaint was rejected for non-payment of Court fee on 6-1-1988. In the application for restoration of the suit it was stated that due to non-availability of higher denomination of the required court-fee amounting to Rs. 2072/-the plaintiff could not file the court-fee within the time permitted by the Court. The court though expressed doubts, did not disbelieve the factual grounds taken to explain the default in payment of court fee, but rejected the application for restoration on the ground that it had no jurisdiction under Section 151, C.P.C. to grant the relief of restoration prayed for. Another ground of rejecting the application of the plaintiff is that it was not verified. During the course of argument of this...
Tag this Judgment!Chandan Chakravarty and Etc. Vs. Council of Higher Secondary Education ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ori125
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In these two cases, common questions of law and fact are involved. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, they were heard together to be governed by this common judgment.2. The petitioners in both the cases challenge cancellation of the examinations and scratching of answer papers in English (Paper I), Economics (Paper II) and Physics (Papers I and II) of the Second Arts and Science Examinations, 1987 of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, conducted at the Panchayat College Centre, Bargarh, in Sambalpur district.3. The facts in brief may be narrated. Petitioner Santanu an Arts student of the Panchayat College, Bargarh, appeared in English and Economics at the Second Arts Examination, 1987 of the Council of Higher Secondary Education. As he was sick, he was permitted by the Professor in-charge of the Examination to sit for the examination in English papers in the sick room. But for some reason or other, he took the e...
Tag this Judgment!Utkal Fero Alloys Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)ECC71; 1992(61)ELT600(Ori)
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioners are accused in 2(c) C.C. No. 43 of 1985 in the Court of the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, and have challenged the order passed on 31-1-1985 by which cognizance of offences under Sections 9(1), (b), (bb) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rules 9(1), 53, 173B, 173C, 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short 'the Rules') against them.2. The short facts which can be gathered from the prosecution report filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Cuttack, are that the petitioners being manufacturers of aluminium ingots and aluminium powder in their factory at Rairangpur in Mayurbhanj district removed and sold away 22,005.437 kgs, of aluminium powder under private challans without payment of central excise duty and without issuing central excise gate pass. They also did not file classification and price lists. Thereby they violated several provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer, Electrical Operation Division Vs. Subasini Pattnai ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-10-1988
Reported in: II(1989)ACC58; 67(1989)CLT307
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an employer's appeal under Section 32 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Claiming the deceased employee to be a workman, his dependants filed an application under the Act for compensation. Contesting the same the employer disputed that the deceased being a storekeeper at the time of his death was performing the duties which are purely clerical in nature and as such was not a workman.3. It is not in dispute that the Commissioner under the Act would have no jurisdiction to award compensation unless the deceased is a workman. Thus, the main question to be decided in this case was whether the deceased was a workman. There is no dispute that the deceased was a Storekeeper. Whether the Storekeeper is a workman, would depend upon the nature of job performed by him.4. Mr. G. Rath, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that Store-keeper would not be a workman since in Schedule-II, persons employed to discharge th...
Tag this Judgment!Duryodhan Mohapatra Vs. Bharat Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-07-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ori142
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Duryodhan Mohapatra, defendant No. 1 in the trial Court and respondent No, 1 in the lower appellate Court, has filed this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(4), of Civil IP.C. (for short' C.P.C.'), challenging the order of the lower appellate Court remanding the case to the trial Court with the direction to frame two specific issues, give opportunity to both the sides to adduce additional evidence, if any, on the said issues and to decide the suit afresh after hearing the parties.2. The respondents filed the suit for partition of the suit properties and for separate allotment of Ac. 0.02 decimals of land out of the 2/3rd interest of the plaintiffs to defendants 2, 3 and 4. The suit property was the homestead land of one Kusuna Mohapatra. The case of the plaintiffs, shortly put, was that one Kusuna Mohapatra had three sons viz. Naran, Gangadhar and Gananatha. The three brothers were separated and were possessing their respective interests in the suit property before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Officer, Sambalpur Municipality Vs. Rama Chandra Agarwalla
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-07-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1170
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. The prosecution launched by the petitioner against the opposite party for having carried out construction of a house without permission of the municipal authorities having ended in acquittal due to dismissal of the complaint for absence of the petitioner on call, he has preferred this revision. In pursuance of the summons issued in the case the accused was present on 25-2-88 on which date the petitioner was directpd to produce his witnesses on 11-4-88 for hearing of the case. On that day while the opposite party was present, the petitioner was absent on call as also his advocate and hence the following order was recorded:The accused is present. The complainant is absent on calls. The advocate for the complainant is also absent and takes no steps. Hence the case is dismissed Accused is acquitted.2. Mr. S. Jena, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged, in assailing the order, that the same was passed in disregard of the salutary principles of law which in the pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »