Orissa Court April 1996 Judgments
Collector, Cuttack Vs. Hari Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ori215
P.K. Misra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector. Challenging the award passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jajpur in L.A. Misc. Case No. 38 of 1986.2. Ac. 0.80 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 748 recorded as homestead in mouza Charinangal was acquired for construction of Krushnadaspur-Ratnagiri Road under Gazette Notification No. 2139 dated 7-12-1984. The Land Acquisition Collector had offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per decimal of land and Rs. 3,000/- for the house standing thereon, but no compensation had been awarded for the well situated in the acquired land. The original claimant, Dhanu Behera, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents received the compensation under protest and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per decimal of land, Rs. 50,000/ - for the house and Rs. 6,000/- for the well. The Subordinate Judge by ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Chandra Kunda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC337
A. Pasayat, J.1. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'). Petitioner apprehends arrest in Rajanagar P.S. Case No. 72 of 1995 corresponding to which a G.R. case has been instituted in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara.2. Petitioner's case is that accusations forming foundation of the case related to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, UPC), and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short, 'Dowry Act'), he is innocent and attempt is being made to falsely implicate him. According to learned Counsel for the State ample materials exist to link petitioner. Considering the submissions and on perusal of records. I do not consider this case to be a fit one where exercise of power under Section 438 of the Code is called for.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara on 9th Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Ada Alias Adeita Behera Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3130; 1996(I)OLR589
P.K. Misra, J. 1. An allegedly libertine person is claiming liberty on the ground of alleged violation of provisions of Section 167(2), Proviso, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). The petitioner has been arrayed as one of the accused persons in G. R. Case No. 507 of 1995 in the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, on the allegation that he alongwith two others forcibly violated a helpless and insane lady. The petitioner surrendered before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 11-12-1995 who passed orders of remand from time to time pending submission of charge-sheet. On 27-2-1996, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate directed remand of the petitioner till 11-3-1996. On 10-3-1996, the petitioner filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for grant of bail on the ground that charge-sheet having not been filed within ninety days, he is entitled to be released on bail, as envisaged under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Sangita Traders Vs. P.K. Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3207
ORDERR.K. Dash, J.1. By filing this petition under Section 482. Cr. P.C., the petitioner has prayed to quash the proceeding in 2 (c) CC No. 32 of 1993 under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 (i) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balliguda.2. On 27-3-1991 at about 11.00 a.m. Food Inspector, Phulbani visited the shop of the petitioner and having suspected food articles viz., Bengal gram Dal and Turmeric powder to be adulterated, made statutory purchase from there articles and kept the same in separate bottles. On the next day he sent one of the bottles from each article to the Analyst who on examination reported 'Bengal gram dal' to be adulterated. On receipt of such report the Food Inspector obtained consent as required under law and launched prosecution against the petitioner.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that after a long passage of time of taking sample i.e. more than two years prosecut...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanashyam Palai and Pathani Mal Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR540
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. In these two applications for bail, common question of law relating to applicability of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') arises and as such both the matters have been heard one after the other and the learned Standing Counsel has also been heard in both the cases.The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1996 who has been convicted under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act and sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo R. I. for six months more, has filed Misc Case No. 94 of 1996 for being released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1996 who has been convicted under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act and sentenced to undergo R. I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo R. I. for one year more, has filed Misc. Case No. 10, of 1996 for being released on b...
Tag this Judgment!Manu Bhai Patel Vs. the Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR169
A. Pasayat. J.1. Petitioner calls in question legality of determination of liability under Section 45 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, the 'Act') by the Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation (in short, the 'Corporation'). Though many points were urged in support of the writ application, essentially it was submitted that before determination no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. The stand of the Corporation in the counter-affidavit and in course of hearing is that on the basis of inspections made by the inspecting staff of the Corporation, and on the basis of records produced by petitioner before the inspecting staff, determination was made and therefore, there was no requirement for granting any opportunity to the petitioner. It is also submitted that Section 45 of the Act does not postulate grant of any opportunity.2. It is the basic requirement of principles of natural justice that when any action adver...
Tag this Judgment!Bilai Alias Prasanna Kumar Nayak and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3171
R.K. Dash, J.1. These six appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused persons') and one Jaimohan Mahanta, since acquitted, stood charged under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC for rioting with deadly weapons and committing murder of Anil Kumar Choudhary (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased')- Learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, upon consideration of the evidence led in support of the charge while acquitting accused Jaimohan Mahanta, convicted all these six accused persons for both the offences and contended each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC and imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the accused persons have preferred this appeal.2. Beraft of details the prosecution case may be stated as under: Barsuan, the place of incident, is an industrial belt and Abhaya Kumar Choudhury, P.W.I6, father of the deceased, is an employee of Steel Authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Binapani Sethi and anr. Vs. Sri Bijay Kumar Sahoo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(II)OLR399
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioners call in question legality of orders passed by the authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short, 'the Act'). The authorities were of the view that there was contravention of provisions contained in Sections 34 and 35 of the Act and the two sale-deeds executed in favour of the petitioners by opposite parties 4 to 8 were void.2. The background facts essentially are as follows :Each of the petitioners purchased land by sale-deed dated 28.9.1993 from opposite parties 4 to 8. Opposite party No. 1 filed an application before the Collector, Cuttack, which was registered as Consolidation Misc. Case No. 1 of 1994, alleging that the areas transferred by 'he sale-deeds were , less than one acre each, thereby attracting rigors of Section 34. The matter was carried before this Court and direction was given to the Collector of finalise the proceeding by 15.10.1995. As no petition was filed before the T...
Tag this Judgment!Subhransu Mohanty Vs. Vice-chancellor, Utkal University and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 82(1996)CLT331; 1996(I)OLR566
Pradipta Ray, J. 1. The petitioner appeared in the Post Graduate Part-II Examination in Economics held in the month of May, 1995. From the mark-sheet sent to him, it appeared that although in Papers--V, VI and VII he obtained marks 60, 57 and S8 respectively in Paper VIII he was awarded only 17 marks.2. Being aggrieved the petitioner applied before the University for verification of the marks of said Paper-VIII. By letter dated March 7, 1996 the Controller of Examinations of UtKal University informed him that the addition of marks in the said Paper-VIII was checked and found correct. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for production of the Examination Paper of said Economics Paper VIII and for a direction upon the opposite parties to recheck and revalue the same.3. In pursuance of our order dated March 27, 1996 the answer script of the said Economics Paper VIII has been produced in Court. It appears from the answer script that the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Meleka Nidi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3304
R.K. Patra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 323, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous' imprisonment for life on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for 15 days on the second count.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant and Dambu Melaka (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased1) were staying in one house but in different portions in village Dangar Chheka. On 16-3-1991 at about noori the appellant dismantled a wall of the house in absence of the deceased. On his return to the house, the deceased asked the appellant as to why he took such steps in dismantling the wall. It is the allegation of the prosecution that on being so confronted, the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of an axe on his head by giving three successive blows resulting in his instantaneous death. When Kusta Melaka, P.W. 8, protested, the appellant assaulted him by the blu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »