Orissa Court March 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.
Shyama Pradhan Alias Shyam Sundar Pradhan and Two ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT738; 1996CriLJ2936
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioners challenge the order of conviction and sentence of one year's R. I. each under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, imposed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 1992.2. The three petitioners who are brothers faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 341,307 and 326/34. Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that they had wrongfully restrained and severely assaulted and tried to commit murder of Basant Pradhan (P.W. 2). their own brother, in furtherance of their common intention, in the Midnight of 9/10-2-1991. The prosecution case is that in the night of 9/10-2-1991. P.W. 2, the injured and his daughter (P.W. 3) were returning from the rice huller and P. W. 1 was following them. All of a sudden, the three accused-petitioners appeared being armed with various weapons, such as Katis and iron rod and detained P.W. 2. Accused Shyama Pradhan and Makar Pradhan were holding Katis whereas accused Chandrameni was ar...
Smt. Khirodini Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through Its Commi ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 82(1996)CLT32; 1996(I)OLR387
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Appellate order passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government in the Housing and Urban Development Department (in short, 'the Commissioner') in an appeal under Section 91 (2)[wrongly indicated in the impugned order to be under Section 91(1)] of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 (in short 'the Act') is underchallenge in this writ application by Smt. Khirodini Sahoo (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner').2. Factual backdrop leading to filing of this application is essentially as follows :On the allegation that the petitioner had constructed her ground floor over a plinth area of 1436 sq. ft. and first floor over a similar area without leaving any set-back, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the Secretary of Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the CDA'). It was alleged that such construction was in violation of the plan as approved by the competent authority. Notice in terms of Section 91(1) of the Act, ...
Raj Exports Vs. National Aluminium Co. Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(87)ELT349(Ori)
ORDER1. Both O.J.Cs 2022/95 and 3586/95, as suggested and agreed by the learned lawyers for the respective parties, have been considered together, O.J.C. No. 2022/95 is at the instance of Fair Exports Private Ltd. and its Director and Shareholder Mr. Sunil Maheshwari against the National Aluminium Co. Ltd., Assistant Collector of Customs, D. D. Foreign Trade and M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. praying, inter alia :-To admit the writ petition and issue a RULE NISI calling upon opposite parties to show cause as to why the goods imported against the licences bearing Nos. 3390229 dated 30-6-1993 and 3390244 dated 8-7-1993 or to be imported against licences Nos. 3390218, 3390216 and 3390214 shall not be given duty free clearance forthwith and if opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said Rule absolute;AndIssue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the opposite party No, 2 to give duty free clearance of the go...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›