Orissa Court February 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.
Babula Alias Ajitpal Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ654
V.A. Mohta, C.J.1. This is the second round of challenge to the order of detention passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1930 against the petitioner-detenu Babula alias Ajitpal by the District Magistrate, Cuttack. The first round was in O.J.C. No. 4115 of 1994 decided on 3rd October, 1994.2. A preliminary objection - which appears quite valid - is raised by the State Government as well as the Central Government against the maintainability of this second petition. The two points raised and urged in the earlier petition were :-(i) The grounds of detention do not have naxus with the maintenance of public order; and(ii) There was undue and unreasonable delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu by the Central Government.Both the Governments were parties to that petition. They had filed affidavits explaining how the grounds were having nexus with public order and how the representation was disposed of without undue and unreasonable delay. One of the stated reaso...
Radha Krishana Singhari and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3083
ORDERD.M. Patnaik, J.1. In the above two appeals the appellants challenge their conviction under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'the Act') and sentence of R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for one year.2. Prosecution case is, on 5-3-1993 at 7-00 P.M. P.W. 1 Officer-in-charge of Puri Town Police Station after receiving intelligence report that the appellants were trafficking in narcotic substances, made a station diary entry to that effect and proceeded with the raiding party to Condua Chaura crossing. At a distance from the Chandini (Mandap) near the crossing they found these appellants with some others on the Monday. Seeing the raiding party, some of them escaped from that place where these two appellants were caught red-handed. On search in presence of the D.S.P., P.W. 1 recovered two polythene packets each containing 260 m.gs. of heroin from the possession of each of the appellants. After recovery...
Ranjan Kumar Nayak Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR347
K.L. Issrani, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr PC for quashing the order dated 2-3-1994 passed in GR Case No. 663/1930 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur whereby, he has passed the order recalling four prosecution witnesses. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these witnesses cannot be recalled for filling up the lacunae by the prosecution. The prosecution did not take earlier steps to apply for recalling these witnesses earlier. At this stage they cannot be recalled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 1981 Cri. L J NOC 3 (A.P. ) (N. Narayana Rao v. State of A.P.) : AIR 1985 SC 1887 (Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.) and also AIR 1887 SC 98 (State of Assam v. Muhim Serkataki and Anr.).3. Learned counsel in appearing for the informant makes submission that these witnesses are none else but named in the FIR. He places reliance on (78) 1994 CLT 962 (Pradeep Kumar Agarwal v. S...
ismile Guru Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ori267; 1995(II)OLR126
Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner challenges correctness of order dated 19-12-1994 (Annexure 8 to the writ application) passed by the Tahaslidar, Parlakhemundi, wherein he has concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Sahara sub-tribe, and as such does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. A caste certificate issued to him earlier in Misc. Case No. 134 of 1983 under the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Rules, 1980 (in short, the 'Rules') was held to be inoperative. According to the petitioner, the Tahasildar acted illegally and/or beyond his jurisdiction in conducting an enquiry behind his back, and coming to the aforesaid conclusion about his caste.2. A brief reference to the factual position, as presented by the petitioner, is necessary for testing correctness of the action taken by the Tahasildar.In the year 1962 the petitioner joined as a Block Level Worker and received promotions from time to time and at the relevant point of time was working as Block Deve...
G.R. Graphite Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: 2003(163)ELT154(Ori)
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioners call in question legality of the order dated 7-11-1991 (vide Annexure - 6) passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Balangir Range (opposite party No. 2). According to them, the order was passed pursuant to the dictates of the Collector, Central Excise Orissa, Bhubaneswar. The aforesaid order vide Annexure-6 passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Balangir Range indicates that the graphite flakes and graphite powder are correctly classifiable under the sub-heading 2505.90 and Notification No. 23/55, dated 29-4-1955 is not applicable. On being moved by the petitioners, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Sambalpur by his order dated 19-6-1991 held that the graphite flakes and powders produced by the petitioners are excisable goods and classifiable under chapter heading 2505 and are eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 23/55-C.E., dated 29-4-1955, and further they are exempted from licensing control under Notifica...
Mahima Prasad Sahu Vs. Collector, Cuttack and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ori263; 1995(I)OLR363
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question legality of the proceeding initiated under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, the Act), before the District Collector, Cuttack. The primary challenge is to the order dated 31-3-1993, directing sale of the seized articles during pendency of the proceeding.2. Background facts which led to the institution of the proceeding, as evident from the documents annexed to the writ application are as follows :--On 1-5-1992, 110 bundles of white papers, each bundle containing 6 reams, having size of 51 x 66 cm. and label of Surya Chandra Paper Mills Ltd. Mareduliaka (Near Mandapeta) in Andhra Pradesh were found in the business premises-cum-godown of M/s. Dharmagrantha Store, Alisabazar, Cuttack without any challan or cash memos, in support of such possession. No stock or issue register was maintained. The articles were seized. Circumstances of seizure as indicated in the seizure documents were that the authorities under the Act...
Trilochan Singh and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settleme ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR537
A. Pasayat, J.1. Short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether authorities under Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1952 ('in short, the, Act') can ignore an order passed under the Orissa Estates Abolilion Act, 1951 (in short, 'Estates Act') on the basis that order passed under Estates Act was without jurisdiction.2. The aforesaid question has come up for adjudication on the following background as portrayed by petitioners. A.20.39 decimals of land belonging to the opp. party No. 3 deity was in forcible possession of petitioner No. 1's father, and thereafter by petitioner No. 1 himself. The said land was a part of a total area of A.207.21 decimals in Khata No. 14 of village Kamatharia. There was note of, such forcible possession in the record-of-rights of 1955. Several others were also recorded to be in such possession in respect of other lands. Vesting notification of Debettor Maufi interest under Section 3A of the Estates Act was promulgated on 29-9-1965. MJC No. 1...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarat Kumar Sahoo and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: 1995ACJ1120
S. Chatterji, J.1. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as the appellant has challenged the award dated 29.10.1992 passed by the Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri, in M.A.C.T. Misc. Case No. 359 of 1987.2. As to the facts of the case, the respondent No. 1, Sarat Kumar Sahoo, filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the allegation that on 30.5.1987 while he was standing by the side of a road, a truck bearing registration No. ORX 6778 rashly and negligently dashed against him and the front right side wheel of the truck ran over the left foot of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 had undergone a permanent disability and the claim was made as such. The insurance company had contested the case challenging the allegations of the respondent. The learned Tribunal has made the award and allowed the sum of Rs. 75,800/- against the appellant with costs and interest.3. Being aggrieved by the award, the insuran...
Orissa State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ353Ori
ORDERA. Pasayat, J. 1. Dispute in the case at hand relates to the propriety of levy of damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the 'Act'). By the impugned order dated November 5, 1993, damages of Rs. 2,35,928.00 have been levied by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa (in short the 'Commissioner'), Opposite party No. 2 at the uniform rate of 25% of the defaulted amount, for the years of 1989-90 and 1990-91. 2. According to learned counsel for petitioners, damages as levied are excessive, and are far in excess of the maximum limits indicated by this Court in several cases concerning the petitioner itself, e.g. B.J.C. No. 2142 of 1986 disposed of on January 28, 1988. It is also submitted that date of payment by the Board by bank draft or cheque has not been taken note of, and date of encashment has been considered to be the relevant date. Further, levy has been made after long passage of time. Learned counse...
Giridhari Das and ors. Vs. Basudev Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR370
K.L. Issrani, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this petition, the prayer is to direct that GR Case No. 862/92 pending before the SDJM, Kendrapara and ICC Case No. 240/92 pending before the JMFC, Kendrapara be tried together by the JMFC, Kendrapara where ICC Case No. 250/92 is pending.2. For this the submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that he had filed the application (Annexure-1) on 22-4- I9a4 before the SDJM for transfer of this case to JMFC, Kendrapara. He also filed an application (Annexure-2) in ICC Case No. 240/ 92 to reserve the decision till the end of the trial of GR Case No. 862/9 . Since it was not done, being aggrieved by the order dated 12-7-1994, passed by the JMFC, Kendrapara in ICC Case No. 240/92 of 1992, revision petition (Annexure-3) was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, kendrapara who after hearing the parties has dismissed the same. Hence this petition under Section 482, Cr PC has been filed.3. L...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›