Orissa Court April 1989 Judgments
Zenith Industrial Services and Two ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and T ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: 68(1989)CLT175; (1990)ILLJ38Ori
V. Gopalaswamy, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner No. 1 M/s. Zenith Industrial Services, a registered partnership firm and its partners petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 challenge the notification No. S. 16025/5 8/77-LW dated 15th December 1979 issued from the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, Government of India under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') prohibiting the employment of contract labour in the works for overburden, removal and drilling and blasting in limestone, dolomite and manganese mines in the country with effect from the date on which the period of six months from the date of publication of the said notification expires.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be briefly stated as follows: One of the objects of the petitioner-registered firm is to carry on the business of 'Contract' and in pursuance of the said object the peritioner-firm e...
Tag this Judgment!Udayanath Barik and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2216
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. This revision application under Sections 397/401 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed by sixteen petitioners, who along with two others, namely, Banka Mohapatra and Krupasindhu Prusty, faced trial for the alleged offences of forming unlawful assembly, wrongfully restraining, obstructing public servants in discharge of their public functions and preventing service of summons and other proceeding and preventing publication thereof Under Sections 143/ 341/ of the Penal Code (described in short as 'IPC') in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadrak in G.R. Case No. 137 of 1979 (Trial No. 137 of 1984) in which each of them has been found guilty under Sections 143/186, IPC and has been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- on each count and in default to undergo R.I. for fifteen days on each count.Originally there were two other accused persons, namely, Udhab Panda and Dait...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Meher Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Bolangir Educat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori243
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. These two writ petitions were taken up together with consent of learned counsel for the parties since the disputes raised in both the cases relate to the same matter and the case involves common questions of facts and law. While OJC No. 2604 of 1986 has been filed by Purna Chandra Meher who was elected as Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School OJC No. 3695 of 1987 has been filed by all the non-official members of the said committee except one. In the former case the letter dt. 21-8-86 of the District Inspector of Schools, Bolangir to the Headmaster Agalpur M.E. School complaining about the selection of Purna Chandra Meher as the Secretary of the School and the letter of the said dale of the District Inspector of Schools to Purna Chandra Meher that as he has not been approved by the Government as Secretary of the School he should not style himself as such in his correspondence, are under challenge; in the latter case the office memo dt. 12th of Nov. 1987 ...
Tag this Judgment!The Governing Body of Devi Kandal Nityananda College, Erancha Vs. Stat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori165
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. The Governing Body of Devi Kandal Nityananda College, Erancha, is the petitioner and has approached this Court for issue of a mandamus to the opposite parties to lake a final decision in the matter of approval of the Governing Body.2. The Governing Body of the College was approved by Opposite Party No. 2 on 6-12-1985 under Rule 4(3) of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Colleges) (Amendment) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') for a period of three years. The said order of approval has been annexed as Annexure 1. Undisputedly the institution is an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The procedure for approval of the Governing Body of a College is prescribed under Rule 4 of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1979. Under Rule 4(1), the Director is required to call upon the President of the Governing Body before nine...
Tag this Judgment!Gadadhar Guru and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1989
Reported in: 68(1989)CLT133
L. Rath, J.1. These two revisions are disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same judgment. The petitioners in both the revisions have been convicted under Section 160, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51/-. The allegations against them were that both the groups of petitioners in both the revisions were fighting with each other at a public place disturbing the public peace. The prosecution case is that the informant A.S.I. had gone to the village on 1-7-82 for enquiring into Station Diary Entries Nos. 14 and 15 of the same day and during enquiry learnt that both, the groups of accused had fought with each other. For such reason, he drew up the F.I.R., Ext. 6, and reported the matter to the O.I.C.2. P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 have been examined as eye-witnesses to the fight by the two groups and P.Ws. 2 and 6 are the doctors who have been examined to prove the injuries respectively on the petitioners in Cri. Revn. No. 188/85 and Cri. Revn. No. 205/85 respectiv...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ambika Sahu Vs. Smt. Sumitra Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-06-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori127
ORDER1.The petitioner, plaintiff in T. S. No. 24/81 before the Subordinate Judge, Bargarh has preferred this revision against an order rejecting her application under Section 10, C.P.C. to stay the proceedings of the suit during the pendency of Second Appeals 266, 267, 268, 269 and 270 of 1985 pending in this Court. The facts leading to the revision are that the petitioner and the opposite party are sisters, being the daughters of one Biranchi Pradhan. The opposite party instituted T. S. Nos. 1 , 2, 4, 5 and 6 of 1980 against the petitioner and her alienees in the court of the Munsif, Bargarh for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with her possession of the disputed land on the pleading that the father Biranchi had executed a deed of gift in respect of the disputed property in her favour oh 13-9-1978 and hence the petitioner had no right of transfer of any portion of the said property. The suits were contested by the present petitioner who filed writte...
Tag this Judgment!Land Acquisition Collector (Civil), Cuttack Vs. Gourapriya Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori170; 68(1989)CLT41
P.C. Misra, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in which the court has granted compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 3500/-per acre for nearly 35 acres of land in favour of the present respondent. 2. The undisputed facts are that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made on 2-5-1975 and the lands acquired under the said notification comprised of a tank as well as waste lands. The respondent claimed to be entitled to the compensation on the basis that he had obtained the said lands by way of lesse from the ex-intermediary sometime in the year 1944, The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs. 14,409/-for 15 acres of land on the assumption that 15 acres were acquired under the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre so far as the tank is concerned, and at the rate of Rs. 700/- pe...
Tag this Judgment!Hindon Foods (Pvt.) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Golden Dragon Sea Food Factory ( ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: 68(1989)CLT152; [1991]70CompCas335(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for an order to wind up the opposite party company. 2. The two petitioner-companies were carrying on business in relation to fish. Both the companies have one chairman. For the purpose of carrying on the business, both the companies entered into agreements with the opposite party-company in order to facilitate the business and advanced huge amounts. After some time, opposite party issued notices to the petitioners to terminate the agreements. While assailing the power of termination of agreements, in reply, petitioners requested the opposite party to repay the advances taken unless processing commenced from December 31, 1986. After some correspondence, the opposite party stopped accepting the stock of petitioner No. 1 and processing the same from May 10, 1987. Petitioner No. 1 tried for an amicable settlement. However, there was no settlement. Thereupon, pet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›