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.
Jitendriya Palo Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2242
ORDERP.C. Naik, J.1. In S.C. No. 9 of 1992 (S.C. 69/92 OCC), the petitioner was tried by the Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar for offences under Sections 364/384/ 511, IPC was made out, but an offence under Section 363, IPC has been made out against the petitioner and accordingly, he was held guilty of the said offence and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the petitioner filed an appeal before the Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur being criminal appeal No. 25/93 (129/92 ODC), Vide judgment dated 7-9-1993, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction under Section 363, IPC recorded by the trial Court, but reduced the sentence of 5 years imposed by the trial Court to R.I. for six months. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge however further also held that an offence under Section 384 read with Section 511, IPC was also made out and accordingly convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo ...
Kalinga Cement Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(52)ECC10; 1995(79)ELT5(Ori)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The order of the Additional Collector, Central Excise and Customs dated 31-3-1992 annexed as Annexure-1 levying duty on 16,143.138 MX of Limestone on a finding that the said limestones was crushed and made to small pieces and was thereafter used in the manufacture of cement and as such dutiable under Heading 25.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, is being impugned in this writ application essentially on the ground that the order in question has been passed on an obvious error of record which has vitiated the ultimate conclusion and as such is not sustainable in law.2. During the period 20-3-1990 to 16-9-1990 admittedly duty is leviable on manufacture of limestone in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 read with Note 2 of Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The competent authority issued notice to petitioner No. 1 - company alleging that the petitioner has manufactured limestone during the aforesaid period without obtaining Ce...
Rajkumar Jindal Vs. Orissa Forest Corporation and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ori10
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner, plaintiff in title Suit No. 46 of 1987 challenges the order for condonation of delay in presentation of appeal by the opposite parties (defendants in the suit) before the learned Addl. District Judge. Titilagarh.2. Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows :Petitioner as plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Titilagarh with a prayer to declare his right, title and interest over the case land and for permanent injunction against the opposite parties on several grounds. The present opposite parties appeared in the suit and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Evidence was adduced by the parties and on perusa and consideration , thereof, the suit was decreed in favour of petitioner. Title Appeal No. 19/12 of 1991-93 was filed by opposite party No. 1 in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge. Titilagarh. Undisputedly, the same was filed beyond the time prescribed for prefer...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Babaji Das and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Reported in: II(1995)ACC185; 1995ACJ1204; (1996)IIILLJ1065Ori
R.K. Patra, J. 1. The insurer has filed this appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, who has awarded a sum of Rs. 39,043.80 as compensation payable to respondent No. 1.2. While respondent No. 1 was working as coolie in truck bearing registration number OAG 364 belonging to respondent No. 2, it met with an accident on February 20, 1992 at about 4 a.m. near Khuntuni Indira Gandhi field under Gurudijhatia police station and consequently he sustained multiple injuries on his person. The said accident occurred in course of his employment. He was getting Rs. 900/- per month and was aged about 25 years at the time of occurrence. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he became disabled. On this ground he filed an application claiming a compensation of Rs. 70,000/- before the Commissioner. The Commissioner held that the vehicle in ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chittaranjan Sandha and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC105; 1996ACJ35; (1995)IILLJ1009Ori
R.K. Patra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in which the insurer has challenged the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. By the impugned order the Commissioner has awarded a sum of 39,324.60 as compensation in favour of respondent No. 1.2. This appeal was heard along with M.A. No. 571 of 1992 because both the matters arose out of the same incident dated February 20,1992 in which truck bearing registration number OAG 364 was involved and respondent No. I like the claimant in the other case was a coolie. Respondent No. l claimed compensation of Rs.70,000/- on the allegation that the incident took place in couse of his employment and he was getting Rs.900/- per month as wages and was aged about 24 years at the time or the accident. Dr. B.K. Das who had opined in the connected appeal was also a witness in this case. He stated that on July 23, 1992 the respond...
Gopal Behera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-01-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3962
ORDERP.C. Naik, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 3-12-1993 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 81/25 of 1990 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed on 20-1-1990 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri in 2(c) C. C. Case No. 61 of 1980 wherein the petitioner having been found guilty of an offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act was convicted and sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 6-3-1980 at about 10.00 a.m. while the complainant (P.W. 1) was on duty along with P.W. 2, they saw the accused carrying a bundle inside the Railway-yard of Puri Railway Station. The accused was stopped and the bundle was searched. In the bundle they found a dynamo belt measuring 12' 4'. The dynamo belt and the napkin in which it was wrapped was seized vide seizure list Ext, 2. P.W. 2 is a seizure witnessee.3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›