Orissa Court November 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Biraja Panda Alias Butia Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT417; 1996CriLJ904; 1996(I)OLR85
R.K. Dash, J. 1. The petitioner, accused in GR Case No. 1923 of 1993 pending in the Court of the SDJM, Sadar, Cuttack, has filed this case under Section 482, Cr PC to quash the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Section 398 read with Sections 114 and 34. IPC.2. To appreciate the question raised, it is necessary to recapitulate the prosecution case as under :One Anuj Kumar Nayak of Mathasahi P. S. Bidanasi,, District Cuttack, lodged a written report at Bidanasi Police Station on 21-11-1993 alleging that on the previous night when all the family members were asleep, his elder brother woke-up hearing some sound, opened the door and found a criminal collecting utensils from the kitchen house. He then raised hue and cry hearing which all the family members woke up and apprehended the culprit and identified him to be Asis alias Ashok Kumar Das of Baurisahi. On the next day FIR being lodged, a case under Sections 457 and 398, IPC was registered and investigated int...
Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited Vs. State of Orissa and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT230; (1997)IIILLJ102Ori
A. Pasayat, J.1. The Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the management') calls in question legality of the award made by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 62 of 1991. A reference was made by the Government of Orissa to the said Court in exercise of power conferredunder Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act'). The terms of reference were as follows:'Is the demand of Shri Abhay Charan Mohanty, Assistant Accountant of OrissaForest Corporation for fixation of pay at Rs. 520/- per month with effect from April 1, 1979 in the scale of pay of Rs. 400/- toRs. 750/- is justified? If so, what direction is necessary in this regard.'2. The reference came to be made in the following premises:A grievance was made by Shri Abhaya Charan Mohanty (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') that he was denied the appropriate scale of pay. ...
Bidyadhar Bhuyan Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR655
S. Chatterji, J. 1. This writ petition along with hundreds of similar petitions as listed on 19-9-1995 has comprehensively been heard by this Bench. As suggested and agreed by several lawyers (sic) for the respective petitioners in different cases as aforesaid and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, this Bench was given to understand that the cases would be argued by three or four prominent counsels appearing for the parties and in order to save time the other counsel will adopt the arguments on behalf of their petitioners. This Court also found the suggestion as practicable and viable and observed that necessary submissions might be made embracing all the points as canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also agreed to the suggestion.2. The petitioners thus have mainly challenged the resolution dated 16-12-1934 of the Government of Orissa. School and Mass Education Department as to taking over the management of all non-Government fully aided High Schools...
Orissa Industries Ltd. Vs. Orichem Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR114
ORDERS. Chatterji, J. 1. The present Misc. Appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant challenging the order dated 5-2-1990 made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rourkela dismissing its suit under Order 11, Rule 11.CPC. It appears from the materials on record that the plaintiff filed the money suit asserting inter alia that it manufactures and despatches for sale refractory items and other itmes in its factory at Lathikata to the buyer-industries against their orders. The defendant placed orders with it from time to time for supply of refractory products and chromite dust/powder from the plaintiff's refractory plant at Lathikata during the years 1980 to 1984. The plaintiff supplied the said materials as per the orders of the defendant during the said period to the tune of Rs. 16,43,791.27 as detailed in the schedule to the plaint. It was alleged that the defendant had paid Rs. 9,65,599.00 as advance from time to time for the said supply and on subsequent demand had paid Rs. 5...
Ananda Chandra Nayak Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ810
ORDERR.K. Dash, J.1. This revision has been preferred by Ananda Chandra Nayak, informant in Sessions Trial Case No. 103/4 of 1993, challenging the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jaipur acquitting the accused-opp. party No. 2 of the offence under Section 436 I.P.C.2. The prosecution allegation as set out in the impugned judgment is that on 8-1-1992 at 11.00 P.M. the opp. party No. 2 on account of previous enmity, set fire to the house of the petitioner, as a result the entire house including the movables were gutted by fire. The petitioner seeing the fire on the thatch apprehended the opp. party No. 2 at the spot and produced him in the Police Station. He then lodged F.I.R. whereupon the Officer-in-Charge of Jaipur Police Station (PW-6) registered a case and after usual investigation laid Charge Sheet against the opp. party No. 2 to stand his trial under Section 436 I.P.C.3. The plea of the accused was that the petitioner and others had severely beaten him for which his w...
V.K. Enterprises Vs. the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-10-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR48
A. Pasayat, J.1. The only question that arises for adjudication in this writ application is whether there was no service of notice on the petitioner (also referred to as 'assessee') as claimed, and therefore, the ex parte decision of the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') ought to have been set aside for a fresh adjudication on merits.2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. Revenue filed four appeals being S. A. Nos. 1950 to 1953 of 1986-87 against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax, Koraput Range, Jeypore (in short, 'ACST') granting relief to the petitioner a proprietorship concern of Sri Amar Kumar Sahu for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 in respect of assessments framed under the Orissa Sales-tax Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act'). The date of hearing was posted to 2-11-1993. There was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The matter was heard ex parte and was disposed of by a Full Bench of the Tribunal accepti...
Bismaya Mohanty and ors. Vs. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa Repr ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-08-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT37; 1996(I)OLR134
A. Pasayat, J. 1. These applications involve a common grievance by the petitioners, each one of whom was a candidate in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1995 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the Board'). Their grievance Is that their answer scripts in various papers have not been properly evaluated; and therefore, a fresh look at them is necessary. According to them, they had expected much higher marks and, were shocked to find that the marks awarded to them, as revealed from the mark-sheets supplied where absurdly less. In some cases, the Headmasters of the institutions were they prosecuted their studies have filed affidavits stating that the marks awarded do not reflect the true merit of the candidates, and there is something wrong in the process of evaluation of answers. It is submitted that the Board has prescribed some guidelines in the matter of evaluation which may provide guidelines for evaluation in the cases of o...
Laxmi Polythene Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales-tax and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR58
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner calls in question legality of order passed by the Sales-tax Officer, Cuttack I West Circle (opp. party No. 2) imposing penalty under Section 13 (8) of the Orissa Sates Tax Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act').2. Background facts giving rise to filing of the present writ application are essentially as follows : A demand notice for payment of Rs. 3,81,959.00 being tax/ penalty levied for the assessment year 1888-83 was served on the petitioner on 23-6-1992. Since there was default in payment, notice was issued to it to show cause as to why penalty shall not be imposed under Section 13 (5) of the Act as according to the Sales-tax Officer, there was failure to produce evidence of payment during prescribed time. Reply was submitted by the petitioner which was not considered satisfactory, and in view of non-payment, it was held that imposition of penalty was called for and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 38,200/-was imposed as penalty.3. The learned counsel for petitioner s...
Ganta SwaIn and ors. Vs. Kandhuni Gouduni and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR89
P. Ray, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellants filed Title Suit No. 90 of 1981 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Aska for a declaration that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 27 of 1971 relating to the suit lands are hot binding on them.2. It appears that Siria Gouduni (since deceased) filed Title Suit No. 27 of 1971 against the co-sharers including the present defendants for partition. The said suit was decreed preliminarily on June 26, 1975 and final decree was passed on January 6. 1981. According to the plaintiffs, during the pendency of the partition suit being Title Suit Mo, 27 of 1971 they purchased the suit lands from the said Sis ia Gouduni on January 22, 1975 by registered sale deeds. It has been alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the said pending suit at the time of their purchase nor they were informed of anything about the said pending suit.3. The defendants contested the suit denying the allegations made in the plaint. The defendants ...
Asia Foundation and Constructions Limited (Afcons) Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR65
R.K. Patra, J. 1. This appeal filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Bhubaneswar refusing to set aside the award and making it the rule of the Court.2. The respondent-State of Orissa represented by the Executive Engineer, Kapur Dam Division, Indravati Project laid a claim of Rs. 9,62,305/- against the appellant before the Arbitration Tribunal, Orissa vide claim case No. 14 of 1985. The appellant made a counter claim of Rs. 1,66,532/- as compensation for idle labour due to interrupted power supply, Rs. 3,15,700/- towards extra chiselling rate and refund of security deposit of Rs. 1,21,960/-. The Arbitration Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') rejected the counter claims laid by the appellant. It however, awarded a sum of Rs. 6,03,450/-in favour of the respondent against the total claim of Rs. 9,62,305/-. After receipt of the award from the Tribunal in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »