Orissa Court May 1996 Judgments
Gandu Mallia Vs. Kanhu Alias Mahendra Mallia and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-17-1996
Reported in: 82(1996)CLT471; 1996(II)OLR26
R.K. Dash, J.1. This is informant's petition under Section 439(2) Cr PC seeking to cancel the bail granted to the opp. party No. 1 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.2. Opp. party No. 1 and four others stand charged under Sections 148, 302 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC.The prosecution-case, shortly stated is that, on 8/9-10-1992 night at about 12.30 a.m. Tulu Mallia (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), elder brother of the informant had come out of his house to make urine. In the meanwhile opp. party No. 1 and his associates suddenly emerged being armed with revolver, sword and bhujali and of them opp. party No. 1 fired from his revolver as a result the deceased received injury on his chest and dropped down there. He was immediately removed to Capital hospital where the doctor on emergency duty recorded his dying declaration. An FIR was lodged in the Capita! Police Station whereupon a case under Section 307, IPC was initially registered and subseq...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. H.K. Pattnaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-17-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT(Cri)22; 84(1997)CLT588; 1996(II)OLR86
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this application sty ed as one under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code'), the State of Orissa has assailed correctness of order passed by teamed Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur discharging Harekrushna Pattnaik (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') under Section 239 of the Code, and acquitting him of the charges.2. Background facts leading to filing of the application are essentially as follows :First Information Report was lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) which was registered as Berhampur P. S. . Case No. 8 of 1987, alleging that the accused who was functioning at the relevant point of time as Chief Executive of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') and was stationed at Bolangir entered into criminal conspiracy with his subordinate staff and contractors thereby committing offence of 'criminal conspiracy' as defined in the Indian Penal ...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu Barik Vs. Sashibhusan Tripathy
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR630
Dipak Misra, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment pasted by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Berhampur in Title Appeal No. 12 of 1984 affirming the judgment passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge. Bethampur in T. M. S. No. 23 of 1981 (T. M. S. No. 50/78 B. S. J. C.) whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that the usfructuery mortgage stands discharged and for recovery of possession of the suit land was decreed.2. The plaintiff's case is that he had mortgaged the suit land described in Schedules 'A' and 'B' of the plaint with the defendant under rigistered usufructuary mortgage deed dated 31-3-1967 for Rs 4500/- and had put the defendants in possession on the condition that half of the yield of the land would be paid, towards interest and the plaintiff would be entitled to redemption after 3 years. It has been claimed by the plaintiff that the mortgage stood discharged on 31-3-1974 and accordingly, the plaintiff served a registere...
Tag this Judgment!Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology Through Its Secretary Achyu ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR66
ORDER1. Heard Shri Bijan Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for opp. party No. 1 and Or, D. Mishra, learned counsel for opp. party No. 2.2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In this application, it assails the order No. 4454 dated 24-4-1996 (Annexure-8) by which the State Government has blacklisted it.3. Shri Ray contends that the impugned order (Annexure-8) was passed without any notice far less hearing the petitioner. He also alleges that the impugned order was passed maliciously and with ulterior motive at the behest of opp. party No.2 (Principal-Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Panchayati Raj Department). He has filed certain applications against the opp. party No. 2 for taking legal action against him.4. By order No. 5 dated 8-5-1996 this Court directed the Secretary of the Government in the Panchayati Raj Department to file affidavit indicating whether before the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ras Bihari Mohapatra Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR134
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Justice delayed is justice denied, and If the cause of delay is absence of Presiding Officers of the Court or Tribunal, the situation becomes still more alarming and critical is the main refrain in this writ application filed by an Advocate- of the Orissa High Court. Though the prayer on a surfacial reading appears to be very innocuous, several aspects of seminal importance are involved which need elaborate consideration, as recital of the factual position would indicate.2. Orissa Administrative Thribunal (in short. 'Tribunal') was constituted on the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short, 'the Act)coming into force. The object of enactment of the Act was to provide for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory ...
Tag this Judgment!Nityananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ori1; 1997(II)OLR207
Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question legality of decision of the Government of Orissa, in Food Supply and Consumer Welfare Department holding that as a notary he held an office of profit, and therefore, was ineligible to hold full-time office of the President of District Consumer Disputed Redressal Forum of Mayurbhani district (in short 'the District Forum').2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice before we deal with the pivotal question, whether a notary holds an office of profit, thereby becoming ineligible to hold full-time office of the President, Consumer Forum.By a notification dated 3-4-1995 issued under Sub-sections (I) and (IA) of Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act'), petitioner was designated as President of the District Forum of Mayurbhani district. He was required to furnish affidavit as per Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Orissa Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 (in short 'the State Rules'). It was indicated thatappointm...
Tag this Judgment!Biswaranjan Dash Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ori4
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioners in both the writ applications, who are working as Non-Formal Education Facilitators at different centres have approached this Court for quashing Annexure-6, the letter of the Deputy Director (Academic), T. E. and SCERT, Orissa dated 21-11-94 and the Rules for admission to the C. T. course of the Government Secondary Training Schools as contained in the prospectus in Annexure-7 prescribing the minimum eligibility of at least 40% of marks in the High School CertificateExamination excluding marks in extra optional subject, apart from other conditions as laid therein.Both the writ applications involve identical question of law and facts and therefore are heard and disposed of together.2. The petitioners' claim that they were appointed as Non-Formal Education Facilitators in different centres by the District Inspector of Schools provisionally on ad hoc basis with a monthly remuneration of Rs. 105/-. On the date of the appointment, the petitioners were Matr...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Prusti Vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Sambalpur an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ori30; 82(1996)CLT218
Dipak Misra, J.1. Justifiability of the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Sambalpur, the O. P. No. 3, granting 'No Objection Certificate' in pursuance of the provisions contained in R. 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') in favour of opposite party No. 4, is called in question, in the present writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, a physically handicapped person operating a retail outlet dealership being conferred such privilege by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, one of the prime Oil Companies of the Country.2. According to petitioner, the facts giving rise to the writ application, sans unnecessary detail, are as follows : The petitioner is a licensee to deal with high speed diesel and has installed his retail outlet over plot No. 1660/3789 of village A. Kantapalli at Gosala, in the district of Sambalpur and the said retail outlet is known as M/s. Kalinga Fuels. It is situated ...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindranath Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ori220
Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question decision taken by the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government to grant licence for opening of a twenty-four hours day and night medical store inside Agarpada Community Health Centre in favour of opposite party No. 5. Said opposite party was selected on the basis of a recommendation made by the concerned Advisory Committee on 22-8-1994. Basic grievance of petitioner is that opposite party No. 6 is the husband of opposite party No. 5 and he played a vital role in changing the norms of selection and participated in the process of selection of his wife.2. Background facts as projected by the petitioner are essentially as follows:Government in Health and Family Welfare Department have prescribed guidelines of selection for opening medical stores in the campus of Medical College Hospitals/District Headquarters Hospitals and Hospitals equivalent to them and Sub-Divisional Hospitals of the State. In its circular dated 10-7-1991, G...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gajendra Prusty and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ692; (1996)IIILLJ324Ori; 1996(II)OLR79
Pasayat, J.In this appeal under the Letters Patent purport of the word 'lie' appearing in the third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act') is the pivotal question for consideration, in addition to other questions which shall be dealt with infra. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurer') calls in question legality of judgment of a learned Single Judge holding that the Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 30 of the Act was defective and consequentially was not maintainable, as the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that appellant had deposited with him the amount payable nder the order appealed against. That was the interpretation given to the expression 'lie' appearing in third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. The quantum awarded by the Commissioner as compensation to Gajendra Prusty (hereinafter refer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »