Orissa Court August 1991 Judgments
Gouranga Satpathy Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR136
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The petitioner who is a Headmaster of an aided M.E. School and who was drawing trained graduate scale while the institution was under private management before receiving grant-in-aid as he was a trained graduate, has approached this Court as subsequent to the receipt of grant-in-aid, the Government paid him only in the trained intermediate scale.2. At the outset, we must observe that though the application was filed as early as in the year 1986, and the matter was admitted on 10thi of September, 1986 in presence of the State Counsel and thereafter notice has been issued to the opposite parties, yet the State has not bothered to file a return to this Court. The petitioner's case is that a Headmaster of a Government M.E. School receives the salary in a trained graduate scale. The Government itself having passed a resolution on 21st of February, 1973, annexed as Annexure-2 to the effect that pay scales of teachers of non-Government aided schools and colleges shall be e...
Tag this Judgment!Ramral Majhi and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1751
J.M. Mahapatra, J.1. Both these appeals filed by the two accused persons arise out of a common judgment in S.T. Case No. 27 of 1986 of the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar convicting both the appellants Under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentencing them each to life imprisonment. This common judgment would govern both the appeals.2. Put briefly, the facts of prosecution case are these. The incident took place in the night of 18-3-86 in village Radhapur. On the previous day the deceased along with his wife had gone to his sister's place in village Radhapur to observe Phula Baguni, locally known as Nuakhia festival. The brother of the deceased with his family members who had also gone there returned to their village Pingu Patna in the night. It is stated that the deceased leaving his wife in Radhapur was returning to his village, when he was attacked by the two appellants and dealt severe blows by means of axe, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries on the Goda land of one Manga...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR458
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These appeals against the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana raise a short issue concerning limitation governing the suit for declaration by a dismissed employee that he continues to be in service since his dismissal was void and inoperative. The High Court has observed that if the dismissal of the employee is illegal, void or inoperative being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of any rules or conditions of service, there is no limitation to bring a suit for declaration that the employee continues to be in service.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals, as found by the Courts below, may be summarised as follows :CA No. 1852/89__The respondent in this appeal was appointed as an ad hoc Sub-inspector in the District Food and Supply Department of Punjab State. He absented himself from duty with effect from 29 September 1975 On 27 January 1977, his services were terminated. On 18 April 1984, he instituted the suit for declaration that t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkishore Rout Vs. Regional Transport Officer Cum Taxing Authority an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR63
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. An interesting but yet a ticklish question that arises for consideration in this writ application is whether a registered owner of a vehicle who admittedly loses possession and control over the vehicle on account of same supervening circumstances and the vehicle in question had not factually been used, can be forced to pay the tax and the penalty thereon for the period in question under the provisions of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The aforesaid question crops up for consideration in the following circumstances,2. The petitioner happens to be the registered owner of a Bus-bearing registration number O. R. B. 5752. The vehicle had been purchased on getting finance from the State Bank of India. As the dues of the Bank could not be paid, the Bank seized the vehicle on 30-10-1989 and physically took away the same from the custody and control of the petitioner and kept it at some unknown place. The petitioner assai...
Tag this Judgment!Duryodhan Mahanta Vs. Saraswati Mahanta
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2230; 1992(I)OLR141
A. Pasayat, J.1. Propriety of order passed under Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'the Code) is the subject matter of adjudication in this revision application.2. Opposite party filed a petition styled one under Section 97 of the Code praying learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jajpur Road (in short the 'JMFC') to issue a search warrant to the Officer-in-charge, Sukinda Police Station to search the house of present petitioner, release from his custody a child confined by petitioner and produce him and to give custody to the mother, the present opposite party as she is the best custodian of the child. According to present opposite party, petitioner was her husband and a son named Laxman was born on 23-12-1987; on 7-7-1990 she was driven out of the house of petitioner who had married for second time; a case for grant of maintenance was filed, as well as a complaint case under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the MPC); on 1-9-1990 the pres...
Tag this Judgment!Kishanlal Kapoor Vs. Babaji Charan Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR525
G.B. Pattnaik, J. 1. Petitioner was a monthly tenant in respect of holding No. 331 in Ward No. 22 within Cuttack Municipality since 1976. Opp. Party No. 1 filed an application for eviction of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act on the ground of bona fide requirement and wilful default. The House Rent Controller passed an order of eviction ex pane on 13-12-1978. The petitioner had no knowledge of the said House Rent Control proceedings and could know about the same only when the landlord opp. party No. 1 levied execution in the Court of the Munsif, First Court, Cuttack, and 'the clerk-in-charge of the petitioner's case could know of the same. The petitioner avers that after inspection of records on 1-11-1983 in the execution case, the petitioner came to know of the ex parte order passed by the House Rent Controller and he filed an application before the Controller under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC alleging that there has been suppression of summons in the house...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT153; 1992(38)ECC148; 1995(75)ELT486(Ori)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. An interesting question of law that arises for consideration in this writ application is whether a statutory authority exercising his powers under the provisions of a statute can refuse relief to an applicant who is otherwise entitled to the same by invoking the principle of 'unjust enrichment'. It is necessary to briefly state facts to indicate as to how the aforesaid question crops up for consideration.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a manufacturer of cement and has its licensed factory at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundergarh where it manufactures cement. During the relevant period, the petitioner had a valid licence for manufacture of 'special cement'. When the petitioner submitted the price list for approval of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rourkela, as required under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), it was contended that the cost of packing in respect of special cement should be excluded from the a...
Tag this Judgment!Minaketan Das Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT312; 1991(II)OLR364
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question his conviction Under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPO) and sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default six months' rigorous imprisonment, in addition to sentence till rising of Court awarded by the learned Additional Chief Judi- cial Magistrate, Cuttack and affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack.2. Petitioner stood charged for having allegedly committed offences under Secs. 408/467/477-A, IPC. He was serving as Secretary of Narasinghpur Service Co-operative Society since 197Q. The allegations were that he had misappropriated cash, pesticides, fertilisers, valuing Rs. 8,256.37 paise during the period from 1-7-1974 to 30-6-1975. He also forged counterfoils of certain receipts and made false entries in the cash book. On these accusations, investigation was taken up, charge-sheet was submitted and the petitioner faced trial.3. Prosecution examined 27 witnesses to further its case while peti...
Tag this Judgment!Mukunda Dev Baral Vs. Sanjib Baral and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT292; 1992CriLJ3048; 1991(II)OLR550
A. Pasayat, J.1. The informant assails correctness of the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack, refusing to recall a doctor who was examimed as PW 5 in the case.2. The case of the informant in support of the application is that the doctor had examined injured PW 6, and the X-ray plates, bed-head tickets and the discharge certificate were not seized by the Investigating Officer (PW 8) and therefore, those were not brought on record Prayer was made by the prosecution in terms of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') to recall to the doctor 10 bring on record those documents and materials. Accused persons resisted the prayer on the ground that the same was belated and was intended to fill in lacuna in the prosecution case.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge refused the prayer primarily on the grounds that; (a) the clinic of the doctor in question was a private one; and possibility of fabrication of records and papers at his lev...
Tag this Judgment!Basanta Kumar Dalai and anr. Vs. B. Dasmohapatra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR559
A. Pasayat, J.1. The petitioners question correctness of the order dated 19-2-1983 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar holding that there was no contravention or violation of any order passed by him and therefore, the petition filed for initiation of an appropriate proceeding Under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') for violation of the order did not merit consideration.2. The factual position is almost undisputed. On the basis of a petition filed by the petitioners, an order Under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') was passed on 3-6-1987. Subsequently, a proceeding Under Section 145 of the Code was initiated on 27-7-1987. The allegation is that on 22-8-1987 notwithstanding the order passed Under Section 144 of the Code, there was change in the nature and character of the disputed land as a cabin was put up by the opposite parties herein The petitioners filed an application for initiation of a proceeding under ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »