Orissa Court October 1996 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.
Amiya Charan Jena Vs. Managing Director, Orissa Handloom Development C ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(I)OLR506
S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. Bench of this Court while hearing OJCs 3638 and 3668 of 1992 entertained doubt regarding correctness of the judgment dated. 5-11-1993 rendered in OJC No. 3883/92 (Hrushikesh Mohanty v. Managing Director, Orissa State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. and others) and referred the matter to a larger Bench. Subsequently, OJC No. 1152/95 was also heard along with the aforesaid cases. The order of reference in OJCs 3638 and 3668 of 1992, which is dated 2-5-1995, reads as follows :'Rule 20 of the Orissa State Handloom Development Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules, 1986, has been struck-down by a Bench of this Court in OJC No. 3883 of 1992 (Hrushikesh Mohanty v. Managing Director Orissa State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.) on the assumption that a probationer on expiry of 2 years must be deemed to have been confirmed in the post. While corning to the aforesaid conclusion. Rule 18 of the Rules has not been brought to the notice of the Court wh...
Basantha Kumar Parida Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2762
C.R. Pal, J.1. The appellant who is convicted and sentenced Under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the act') has preferred this appeal assailing the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaypore in Sessions Case No. 327 of 1991.2. The case against the appellant is that on 2-9-1991 at about 12.30 P.M. while the officer-in-charge of Boiperiguda Police Station (P.W. 5) was performing patrol duty along with his staff at Boiperiguda Bus Stand, Bajangowada-Jaypore Bus bearing Registration No. (sic) 4417 reached there and the appellant along with one Suresh Chand Pradhan, the co-accused alighted from the bus. At that time the appellant was holding a tin box (M.O. 11) and the other co-accused was holding an attache (M.O. 1). P.W. 5 suspecting their movement wanted to search the tin box and the attache and asked them to open the same. When they did not open the tin box and the attache, he searched t...
Kasinath Pani Vs. Social Extension Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR661
R.K. Patra, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner Kasinath Pani seeks quashing of the order dated 14-8-1995 (Annexure-3) terminating his services as Secretary of Gaiba Grama Sasan.2. The petitioner was serving as Secretary of Gaiba Grama Sasan at the material time. The Block Development Officer, Gumma (Opp. Party No. 3) issued letter No. 1609 dated 15-7-1996 (Annexure-1) directing the Sarpanch to terminate the services of the petitioner as Secretary after discussing the matter in the Grama Panchayat. In the said letter the Block Development Officer clearly stated that he issued the instruction pursuant to the letter of the District Panchayat Officer and the direction of the Collector. The Gaiba Grama Panchayat accordingly held its meeting on 26-7-1995 but decided unanimously not to remove the petitioner from service as he bad been serving quite satisfactorily. In August, 1995 as a consequence of dissolution of all the Panchayat in the State the ejected member and Sarapanches of t...
Sudeep Ranjan Das Vs. Chairman, Joint Entrance Examination (Engineerin ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: 83(1997)CLT200
S.C. Datta, J.1. The petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the procedure adopted by the opposite parties for selection to the Medical Course under category-wise counselling instead of merit-wise counselling On the ground that is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, such category-wise counselling runs contrary to the clauses 3.5 and 3.16 of the Information Brochure of Joint Entrance Examination (Engineering and Medical), 1996, Orissa.2. The petitioner appeared at the Joint Entrance Examination (Engineering and Medical), 1996, Orissa, under reserved category 'G'. This reserved category 'G' covers children of Green-card holders. Result of the above mentioned examination was published on 12th July, 1996 and, in the merit list for medical stream, the name of the petitioner has been shown against SI. No. 253. According to the petitioner, the above noted Joint Entrance Examination (for short, 'JEE -- E&M; --1996') was conducted by opposit...
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Biswanath Barman ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ78; 82(1996)CLT712; [1996(74)FLR2710]; (1997)ILLJ797Ori; 1997(I)OLR560
S.N. Phukan, C.J,1. In Misc Appeal No. 355 of 1992 a learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following two questions arising out of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') for our decision:-' (1) whether insurer (sic) can be made liable for interest and penalty under the Act not withstanding absence of specific provision therefor in the Act and stipulation in the policy issued by the insurer?(2) Whether levy of penalty is automatic or the insurer is entitled to an opportunity to show that levy of penalty is not warranted, even if it is held that insurer is liable?'In the other appeals, only the first question has been referred.2. The necessity for making the present reference to this Full Bench arose as a learned single Judge of this Court in the Oriental Fire and Gen- eral Insurance Co., Ltd v Matias Burla 1986 ACJ 732 held that under Section 4A, the insurer is not liable to pay either penalty or interest; but the decision of the learned single Judge was not...
Madan Mohan Rout Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(I)OLR113
Dipak Misra, J.1. In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority in Annexure-9, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority under Annexure-10 and confirmed by the revisional authority, [Annexure-1 (a)].After stating details of charge, findings, submissions it is held :6. We have perused the enquiry report, which has been filed as Annexure-8. The Enquiry Officer analysing the evidence recorded a finding that the delinquent was not involved in the theft. For the purpose of the said conclusion he has taken into consideration the statements of the witnesses and their inherent contradictions. We have noticed that the disciplinary authority has recorded a different opinion as far as the theft part is concerned. To justify his difference he has relied on the deposition of the delinquent and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who have categorically stated that they had seen the delin...
Bishnu Mohan Jena Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR569
P.K. Misra, J. 1. Both the aforesaid writ applications relate to the same question and as such are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in OJC No. 3283 of 1996 (hereinafter called the 'purchaser') purchased a vehicle bearing No. OSO 3411 in an auction held by the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter called the 'Corporation' on 19-1-1996. The vehicle was seized by the Corporation under Section 29 of 'the State Financial Corporation Act from Sunil Kumar Behera (hereinafter referred to as the 'original owner'). The purchaser in his writ application has prayed for a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to effect the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his name and to issue road permit without insisting upon payment of arrear tax. In the alternative, he has prayed for a direction to the Corporation to deposit the tax demanded by the Regional Transport Officer. He has also prayed for a direction regarding payment of Rs. 45,000/- towards loss caused d...
Div. Manager, New India Assu. Co. Ltd. Vs. Biswanath Burman and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC80
S.N. Phukan, C.J. 1. In Misc. Appeal No. 355 of 1992 a learned Single Judge of this Court has referred the following two questions arising out of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') for our decision':(1) Whether insurer can be made liable for interest and penalty under the Act notwithstanding absence of specific provision therefor in the Act and stipulation in the policy issued by the insurer?(2) Whether levy of penalty is automatic or the insurer is entitled to an opportunity to show that levy of penalty is not warranted, even if it is held that insurer is liable?In the other appeals, only the first question has been referred.2. The necessity for making the present references to this Full Bench arose as a learned Single Judge of this Court in the Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Matias Burla 1986 ACJ 732 (Orissa), held that under Section 4A, the insurer is not liable to pay either penalty or interest; but the decision of the learned Single Judge was not accept...
State of Orissa Vs. Birat Chandra Dagara
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ori142; 83(1997)CLT182
Pradipta Ray, J.1. The present appeal has been filed at the instance of State of Orissa against the judgment and order dismissing its objection against the award passed by the Arbitration Tribunal, Orissa in Arbitration Case No. 30-C of 1985.2. The respondent contractor obtained the work of widening a portion of N. II.-42 on the basis of the agreement No. 104-F2-1980-81 at an agreed cost of Rs. 56,86,233/-. The contractor was to complete the work within 24 calendar months from the date of commencement of the work. The work commenced on March 25, 1981. Contractor could not progress with the work in accordance with the specified time schedule. He submitted revised programme for execution of the work, but he could not adhere even to the revised schedule. Ultimately contractor abandoned the work in an incomplete state after execution of work worth Rs. 13,30,741/-. Both sides have accused each other for being responsible for delay in execution of the work. As the respondent-contractor left ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›