Orissa Court November 1990 Judgments
Utkal Asbestos Ltd. Vs. T.S. Rao and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-30-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR972]; (1993)IIILLJ726Ori
Patnaik, J. 1. The award of the Industrial Tribunal in Industrial Disputes case No. 16 of 1982, annexed as annexure 4 has been assailed in this writ application.2. The short facts of the case are that the State Government made a reference under Section 12(5) read with Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the reference being:'Whether the termination of services of Sri T. Sanmukh Rao by the management of Utkal Asbestos, Ltd., with effect from 10 July 1980, is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief Sri Sanmukh Rao is entitled?'3. The petitioner who is an employer made out the case that opposite party 1 was appointed by order, dated 1 December 1978, on probation and the said probationary period of six months had been extended but as the work was found unsatisfactory, his services were terminated with effect from 10 July, 1980. On the date of termination, the management had Rs. 601 outstanding against the workman and, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Officer, Puri Municipality Vs. Rama Naik and ors.,
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-30-1990
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR175
1. The persons who have approached this Court in these proceedings being to the lower strata of the society. They seek social justice They claimed paltry amounts of gratuity. The employer is none else than Puri Municipality, The claims of the opposite parties were denied by the Municipality on the ground that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (shortly 'the Act') has no application to it. This claim has not been sustained either by the Controlling Authority under the Act or the Appellate Authority. The claim was nonetheless advanced on the ground that the notification issued by the Central Government, as contemplated by Section 1(3)(c) of the Act specifying the local bodies' in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as a class of establishment to which the Act shall apply, had come into force with effect from 23rd January, 1982 whereas the gratuity had become payable in these cases some time in seventies. The two authorities...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan Sahu Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori139; 71(1991)CLT322; 1991(I)OLR82
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. The enunciation of law made by a Bench of this Court while disposing of a batch of writ applications in O.J.C. Nos. 2001 to 2008 of 1983 (Pradyumna Panda v. State of Orissa) disposed of on 28-9-1988 with regard to the power of the Member, Board of Revenue, in entertaining and disposing of a revision under Sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Orisa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') having been doubted by a latter Division Bench, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench. The Member, Board of Revenue, while disposing of the revision came to the conclusion that he could not accept the reference made by the Collector as the satisfaction of the Collector was inadequate. Having not accepted the reference, he had, however, further observed that it was open to the Collector to examine the case afresh giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties and make a reference if he wassatisfied that injustice had been done. This observation made by the Mem...
Tag this Judgment!Radharmohan Alias Sridhar Mohapatra Vs. Haribandhu Athua and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR551
A. Pasayat, J.1. Reversal of success by the first appellate Court has brought the defendant before this Court.2. In the present appeal, the controversy relates to the scope, purport and ambit of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Act'), and the modalities to be performed before a document required by law to be attested can be used in evidence.3. The fact situation giving rise to the controversy, briefly outlined, is as follows :Plaintiffs, the rspondents herein, filed the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, alternatively for recovery of possession if there has been any illegal dispossession, and for declaration that an alleged gift deed executed in favour of the defendant was illegal, invalid ; and the transaction was unauthorised as the property was joint family property. Plaintiffs and defendant are progenies of one Bansidhar. Defendant was adopted by one Padmanav, during the former's childhood. Plaintiffs contended.that taking advantage...
Tag this Judgment!Jogeswar Bera and Hrudayananda Ojha Vs. the State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT371; 1991(I)OLR150
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioners while serving as Headmasters of different High Schools were pbbed under suspension, vide Annexure 4 of O. C. J, No 2439/84 and Annexure 1 of O. C. J. No. 2452/84, pursuant to memo of the Inspector of Schools informing about misappropriation of large suits of money (Rs. 24,615,25 in one case and Rs, 35.4S4.40 in the other) by committing forgery, fraud and embezzlement. The ordeTS of suspension stated that the same would remain in force till the criminal and civ! proceedings that would be drawn up are finalised.2. The validity of these suspension orders has been assailed in these two writ petitions. The attack is on the ground that the second Proviso to Rule 21 (2) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was not attracted since under that proviso an order of suspension can be passed only when a disciplina...
Tag this Judgment!indrajit Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT458; 1990CriLJ2328
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. The petitioner assails the finding of guilt, conviction under Section 41 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1918 (in short the 'Act'), and consequential award of sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 600/-, with default sentence of simple imprisonment for thirty days.2. A prosecution report is claimed to have been submitted with the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar alleging that the petitioner had extended power supply to nearby shops unauthorisedly, and thereby engaged himself in the business of supplying energy, and was thus liable under Section 41 of the Act. On receipt of the said prosecution report, cognizance under Section 41 of the Act was taken. The learned Magistrate has recorded that he had perused the documents (underlining by me), and thereafter cognizance was taken. He has further recorded that particulars of offence were read over and explained to the accused who allegedly pleaded not guilty, and did not claim for trial. The statement under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Hrusikesh Das and ors. Vs. Dhanu Ghadel
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ879
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. In this revision application, assail (sic ?) is to the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Subdivisional Judge Magistrate, Jajpur, confirmed in appeal by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack.2. Allegations were levelled against the present petitioners and seventeen others they dishonestly removed paddy crops from the land belonging to the complainant-opposite party. The present petitioners laid a claim that they had purchased the disputed land on 2-6-1984, had grown paddy crops and therefore, there was nothing illicit in their removing the paddy crops. Though the date of occurrence is 8-9-1984 the complaint was filed on 19-9-1984 which is the starting point of the litigation so far as the present case is concerned.3. Witnesses were examined by both the parties in support of their respective stands and on evaluation of the documentary and oral evidence, the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, came to hold that the charge ...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT77; 1991(I)OLR91
B.L. Hansarla, C.J.1. In this petition we are ' concerned with the extent of power of the Officer-in-charge of (sic) check-post established pursuant to the power conferred by Section 16-A of the Orissa Sale's Tax Act, 1947 (shortly called 'the Act') to detain goods and do other connected acts to prevent and check evasion of the tax under the Act.2. What happened was that the petitioners purchased some goods for renovation, modernisation and expansion of their factory Situated at Brajarajnagar, The purrhase-in-question was precisely for the purposed establishing a plant for captive generation of power to meet the petitioners' own requirement. Order for the supply of goods was placed on M/s. lsdec John Thompson. The goods supplied were being brought by. road when the same-were intercepted at the Unified.-. Checkgatge Birmmkrapur, on the ground that the prescribed way bill was defective inacomplete ..and there was evasion of tax. The petitioners' two trucks were to intercepted, and under ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadasiba Nayak Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT471; 1991(I)OLR197
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioner is a matriculate of T%9. He has been a Khalasi ever since 1372, He has been so employed as art N. M. R. workman. Placed thus he was looking forward to some improve- ment in his working condition and with this end in view he got his name registered in the Employment Exchange of Kamakshyanagar. It seems, that at one point of time luck. smiled on him as he was called for interview for the post of Assistant; Tax Collector on 25-6-1986 and was ultimately selected for the post finding him suitable after relaxing the age limit. The Order of appointment was passed by the Bhuban Notified Area Council and the petitioner joined on 30-6-1986. As, however, under the second proviso to Rule 408 of the Orissa Municipal Rules, 1953, the relaxation of age limit has to receive prior approval of the State Government, the matter was referred to the Government and a communication was received from the Additional Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, that t...
Tag this Judgment!Umakant Palatasingh and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: II(1992)DMC361
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application Under Section 389, Criminal Procedure Code.2. Mother and son, the two appellants have been convicted underSection 306, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years each. They were chadged Under Section 304-B, I.P.C. for which notice to show causewhy they shall not be convicted Under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and the sentenceshould not be enhanced, has been issued in this appeal. Mother, appellantNo. 2 aged about 55 years has been directed to be released on bail of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) only with one surety in this appeal. Applicationin respect of son appellant No. 1 was kept pending to be considered afterreceipt of the L.C.R. This matter has been placed after receipt of the recordof the lower Court.3. In Criminal appeals, paper books are to be prepared as per rulesof the Court. That, however, being only procedural, I offered to hear theappeal referring to the original since one of the convicts is in jail. Mr. S.P.Moha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »