Orissa Court April 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.
Fakir Charan Sahu and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR110
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner's stand that Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') comes to their aid having been turned down by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak (in short, 'CJM'). this application for interference has been filed. 2. A brief resume of the background facts would suffice. GR Case No. 1402 of 1990 was instituted on the basis of information ledged by a Grama Rakhi for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 160 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short MPC). Petitioners and five others faced trial and were acquitted in the said proceeding by learned CJM. Subsequently, another GR Case No. 597 of 1991 with which present dispute is concerned was instituted. Allegation related to commission of offence under Section 323, IPC. Petitioners claimed shelter under Section 300 of the Code, but learned CJM found their plea untenable. Learned CJM held that Section 300 comes into operation only when offence involved in the two cas...
Kuna Maharana Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ170; 1995(II)OLR79
A. Pasayat. J.1. Though this case was listed for admission, at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for parties it is taken up for final disposal.2. Petitioner faced trial for allegedly having committed offences punishable under Sections 448 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short,'IPC'). The accusations in short were that on 22-11-1992 at about 5 p.m. information was lodged by one Sarat Maharana that while he was on the village road, the accused-petitioner tried to beat him with a lathi. The informant caught hold of the said weapon to save himself, but the accused beat his wife Chanduri Maharana (PW 1). As a result of the assaults, she became senseless. She was shifted to Khurda hospital where she was referred to Capital Hospital for treatment. On the basis of information lodged, investigation was undertaken and charge-sheet was submitted on completion of investigation.The accused pleaded innocence and false implication.3. Taking into consideration the evid...
Bighnaraj Panda Vs. Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Techn ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR512
S. Chatterji, J. 1. The present writ petition is at the instance of one Bighnaraj Panda who seeks the following reliefs :' xx xx (ii) That the opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to file their show cause within a stipulated time why the writ application should not be allowed and in the event they fail to file their show cause or show insufficient cause then in the writ application after hearing the petitioner's advocate be allowed, (iii) And to issue a writ of mandamus to the opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 to declare the result of the petitioner. (iv) That in the event if it is necessary, orders to call for the comment sheet and result sheet and the mark sheet may also be called for from the interview board held on 25-10-1990. (v) And to issue rule nisi to the opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 for appointing the petitioner in the post of Technician Grade II Testing Trainee from the date of appointment of opp. party No. 3, that is from 30-11-1990, and for terminating the opp. party No. 3 from the Testin...
Saudamini Tripathy Vs. Pramila Dibya and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC492
A. Pasayat, J. 1. In an unfortunate litigation between the mother on one hand, and daughter on the other hand, minor children of mother have also been imp leaded. A petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') was filed by mother Pramila Dibya, and her minor children claiming maintenance from Pramila's daughter Saudamini. Acording to claimants, they were unable to maintain themselves and Saudamini was legally obliged to maintain them. The matter was taken up by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on 25.7.1994 and was disposed of with certain directions. He observed that order was passed on consent of parties.2. Learned Counsel for Saudamini has submitted that there was in fact no consent, and no adjudication at all was done and with some abrupt conclusions, learned Judge, Family Court has disposed of the matter. It is submitted that claim by brothers and sister was not entertainable. Learned Counsel for claimants submitted that learned Judg...
iswar Chandra Naik Vs. Allahadini Sahu (Naik) and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC467
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The revisional order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir, in Criminal Revision No. 40/2 of 1993 dismissing the petitioner's revision arising out of a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sought to be assailed in this application by invoking the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code. The main ground of attack is that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error in recording a finding that the Opp. Party are the wife and son of the petitioner respectively.2. On the petition of Opp. Party No. 1 for self and for Opp. Party No. 2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from the petitioner alleging that said Opp. Party No. 1 had married the petitioner on 23.2.1986 according to the Hindu rites in a Shiva temple and Opp. Party No. 2 was born out of their wedlock and that the petitioner is neglecting to maintain them, the petitioner ap...
iswar Chandra Naik Vs. Smt. Allahadini Sahu (Naik) and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3865; 1995(II)OLR50
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The revisional order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir, in Criminal Revision No. 40/2 of 1993 dismissing the petitioner's revision arising out of a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sought to be assailed in this application by invoking the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code. The main ground of attack is that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error in recording a finding that the opp. parties are the wife and son of the petitioner respectively. 2. On the petition of opp. party No. 1 for self and for opposite party No. 2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from the petitioner alleging that said opp. party No. 1 had married the petitioner on 23-2-1986 according to the Hindu rites in a Shiva temple and opp. party No. 2 was born out of their wedlock and that the petitioner is neglecting to maintain them, the petiti...
Chaini Das and ors. Vs. Kanhai Charan SwaIn and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR486
S. Chatterji, J. 1. The present writ application at the instance of the petitioners Chaini Das and two others challenges the impugned order dated 8th June, 1989 in revision made by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in R. C. No. 509 of 1989 arising out of the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kendrapara dated 4-2-1989 in Appeal Case No. 282 of 1987 under Section 12 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as of 'the Act') confirming the common order dated 6-11-1987 relating to village Pokhariapada under Pattamundai police station in Objection Case Nos. 51, 52 and 53 of 1983. The revision under Section 36 of the Act refers to certain salient facts in as much as the disputed lands were recorded in the name of Sri Gopinath Jew marfat Lokanath Das and Ors.. It is recorded that one Sunakar Das, successor of Raghunath Das and Dadhiram Das son of Chhayadhar Das by registered deeds of lease date...
Basudev Purohit Vs. Republic of India and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3867
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this application under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') essentially two pointer have been reised ffor consideration. First relates to legality of the direction given by the learned Special Judge, Bhubanaswar requiring the petitioner to de posit Rs. 3,000/- towards the expenses of defence witnesses. Second relates to the conclusion that the prayer to recall P.Ws 2 and 4 for further cross-examination did not merit consideration.2. A brief reference to the background facts is necessary.Petitioner, one of the two accused in T.R. No. 20 of 1987 pending before the learned Special Judge, Bhubenswar, filed an application to recall P.Ws 2 and 4 for further cross-examination. The prayer was rejected on the ground that these witnesses have been cross-examined at length since 1992.It was observed that the purpose of filing the petition was to prolong proceeding, though Court had directed for expeditious disposal of the case, another app...
Ch. Najeswari Patra and anr. Vs. Pradip Kumar Sarkar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR82
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioners call in question legality of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Bhubaneswar (in short, 'JMFC') by which he rejected the prayer made by petitioners to dispense with their personal attendance and to record their statement through their counsel.2. Stand of the petitioners in the present application is that they were permitted to be represented through counsel under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code'), and therefore, their statement in terms of Section 313 of the Code need not be recorded. In esssence, their stand is that since they were allowed to be represented under Section 205 of the Code, they can seek such exemption in terms of the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Code. The stand of the opp. party on the other hand is that such a prayer cannot be accepted.3. The undisputed position is that the case at hand is a summons case as the offence allegedly committe...
Saumya Ranjan Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4239
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. The only point involved in this application is whether application made by the complainant in terms of Section 15(3) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short, the 'Act') can be treated as a criminal complaint, or has to be dealt with by the concerned Court according to procedure applicable to a Court of Civil jurisdiction.2. Section 15 of the Act deals with claims arising out of deductions from wages, or delay in payment of wages and. penalty for malicious or vexatious claims. State Government is empowered to appoint by a notification in the Official Gazette Presiding Officer of any Labour Court or Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'Industrial Act') or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State, or any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »