Orissa Court October 1991 Judgments
Maheswar Samal Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT513; 1992CriLJ863
B.N. Dash, J.1. All the seven appellants were tried for the offences under Section 9-B of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short 'the Act') and Under Section 395, IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur. While acquitting all the appellant of the charge Under Section 9-B of the Act, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the appellants Under Section 395, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years.2. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 1-9-1987 at about 11.30 p.m. the informant Shyam Sunder Pradhan (P.W. 1) and his family members consisting of his wife Soli Dei (not examined), his two sons Surendra Pradhan (P.W. 2) and Sridhar Pradhan (not examined), his daughter Laxmipriya (not examined) and his daughter-in-law Smt. Kataki Pradhan (P.W. 3) went to sleep after dinner. While P.Ws. 1 and 3 slept on the oute...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Das and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2204
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of cognisance dated 8-3-1989 by which order the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences Under Sections 436/149 and 147, I.P.C.2. The petitioners' case in brief is that an arson took place in the Harijan Busti on 8-4-1988 and on the basis of an information to that effect, the police registered a case and started investigation. While the police was preceding with the investigation, a complaint was filed by opposite party No. 2 on 19-4-1988. The Magistrate recorded the initial statement of the complainant on 20-4-1988 and instead of issuing process directed an enquiry Under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the enquiry the complainant produced his witnesses. Finally on the basis of the available materials the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences by the impugned order dated 8-3-1989. The G.R. case which ...
Tag this Judgment!Maa Dakshinakali Animal Feeds Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori278; 73(1992)CLT401
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ application for a declaration that the decision of the Government as conveyed by Annexure-A/3 prohibiting setting up of dairy plants, cattle feeds plants, chilling plants excepting by the Orissa State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation was ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and for grant of a mandamus directing opposite parties 1, 2 and 5 for issue of licence.2. With a view to setting up of an industry for the purpose of manufacturing animal feeds, the petitioner after registering herself with the District Industries Centre, Puri, obtained sanction of a loan from the Orissa State Financial Corporation for the infra-structure machinery and entered into an agreement with the Orissa State Electricity Board for supply of electricity. She made an application to the Project Manager, District Industries Centre, Bhubaneswar, for grant of a licence who, as per Annexure-1 recommended her case to the Director of Vete...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Prashanta Kumar Kar Vs. Board of Trustees, Paradip Port Trust and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT425; (1993)ILLJ136Ori
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner, who was serving as a Senior Radio Mechanic, was suspended by order dated February 22, 1984 as per Annexure-1 under Regulation 7(1)(a) of the Paradip Port Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 and a disciplinary proceeding was indicated with three heads of charges. The charges and the statements of imputation of misbehavior or misconduct have been annexed as Annexure-1. The charges were sought to be supported by documents and witnesses, witnesses being 6 in number. Shri Sridhar Mishra, Tug Engineer, was appointed as the Enquiring Officer and Shri R.N. Mohanty, Assistant Engineer (Mech.), Sand Pump Division, was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The petitioner pursuant to notice filed his written statement and requested for permission to engage a lawyer which was turned down vide Annexure-5 dated July 2, 1984 on the ground that he was not entitled to the assistance of lawyer under Clause (8) of Rule 10 of the Regulations. H...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Refractories Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT373; (1992)IILLJ810Ori
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The notification of the Central Government dated February 4, 1987 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') prohibiting the engagement of contract labour in the fireclay mines of the country, is under challenge in this writ application. The main ground of attack is that the appropriate authority has not applied its mind to the relevant conditions stipulated under the Act before issuing the notification and accordingly, the impugned notification being a product of non-application of mind is illegal and invalid.2. The petitioners assert that the Tata Refractories Limited is engaged in manufacture and production of fire-bricks and other refractory materials and the Talabasta Fireclay Mine situated near Banki is a captive mine of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners have engaged two contractors with the job of removal of overburden, raising and st...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Basanti Kumari Sahu Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT868; 1992(I)OLR41
R.C. Patnaik, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of the decision of the Board of Revenue dated 14-7-1981 as per Annexure-6 rendered in O. E. A. Revision Case No. 31 of 1978, by way of judicial review in exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction.2. Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, opp. party No. 3; was the intermediary of the disputed property--115 decimals in extent appertaining to plot No. 2223, under Khata No. 1 of mouza Bhubaneswar. The petitioner made an application for grant of permanent lease. The Trust Board of opp. party No. 3 decided to grant the lease and fixed the salami and rent payable. The petitioner paid Rs. 1200/- on 25-11-1972. She paid rent and ownership certificate was granted to her on 24-3-1973. See has alleged that by acceptance of rent, she acquired tenancy right in respect of the property and upon the vesting of the estate with effect from 18-3-1974 by operation of law, she held the land as a tenant under...
Tag this Judgment!Jayakrishna Panigrahi and ors. Vs. Hrusikesh Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1056; 1992(I)OLR26
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This case has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court as there was divergency of views with regard to interpretation of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In the case of Khetrabasi Patnaik v. State 32 (1966) CLT 991, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that where an old cocoanut tree leans towards the court-yard of the complainant and there is apprehension of danger to the human life, a Magistrate would have jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the nuisance would amount to a public nuisance. In Gayasundari Devi v. Jagannath Nayak and Anr. 55(1983) CLT 110, a learned Single Judge of this Court came to hold that Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply only when a public nuisance is caused and would not apply where the apprehension is confined to damage to a particular individual. In Lalmohan Patnaik v. Harihar Tripathy 36 (1970) CLT 148,...
Tag this Judgment!Basudevpur (R and B) N.M.R. Employees Association and Ors. Vs. State o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT32; 1992(I)OLR4
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted with a view to considering a question of considerable importance, namely;Whether having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 15 and 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article. 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by a casual labourer/worker, daily rated worker, like a Nominal Muster Roll employee (for short 'N.M.R.') employed by the State Government, for enforcement of his fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India for payment of equal pay for equal work and to end his exploitation ?2. Petitioner in OJC No. 1107 of 1989 is the All Orissa Irrigation Workers Union, a registered Trade Union, whereas the petitioner No. 1 in OJC No. 1191 of 1983 is the Basudevpur (R & B) N.M.R. Employees' Association, a registered association. Petitioners 2 to 6 are the N.M.R. employees serving under the Basudevpur and Soro (R & B) Subdivisions under the control o...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Industries, Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR302
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The four writ petitioners are engaged in the work of manufacturing Chuda. Their case is that under the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1986, they were entitled to certain incentives which are sought to be denied by Annexure-7 dated 27th March, 1990. This action of the Government has been assailed in these petitions.2. Shri Lal appearing for the petitioners contends that by relying on the promise held out in the aforesaid policy resolution, the petitioners had set up units for manufacturing Chuda some time in 1989 and as the incentives were to be made available for a period of five years from the date of production, denial of the same before expiry of the aforesaid period is hit by the principle of promissory estoppel. As to the applicability of this doctrine, Shri Patnaik, learned Standing Counsel for the Department, states that the representation must have been unambiguous which must have been reasonably understood as a promise by the person to whom it is made, a...
Tag this Judgment!Baladev Khes and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-1991
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT84; 1992CriLJ2059; 1992(I)OLR210
L. Rath, J. 1. Both the appellants having been convicted under Section 412, IPC, and sentenced to R. I. for five years each, in a trial under Section 395 IPC, along with five others, have approached this Court in appeal. The case of the prosecution was that the appellants along with five others committed dacoity in the house of PW 9 on 16-3-1984 and decamped with very many valuables like cash, gold ornaments, wrist-watches, radio, etc. While all were acquitted of the charge under Section 395 IPC, the appellants were found to be receivers of stolen properties through commission of dacoity and hence were convicted as such. The case of the prosecution, so far as appellants were concerned, rests upon the evidence of PWs 14 and 15, respectively the A. S. I. in-charge of Kuarmunda outpost under Birmitrapur P. S. who first of all had taken up the investigation and the O. I. C. of Biramitrapur P. S. who took up investigation after PW 14 ; PWs 8 and 9 the identifying witnesses and PW 6, a witne...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »