Orissa Court June 1996 Judgments
Smt. Dura Devi and Niranjan Mallick Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-30-1996
Reported in: 1998CriLJ293
P.K. Misra, J.1. The two appellants along with two other accused persons faced trial under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for having Caused the death of Paramananda Mallick. Appellant Dura Devi is the wife of appellant Niranjan Mallick and the other two acquitted accused persons are respectively the father and brother of appellant Niranjan. The trial Court while acquitting all the accused persons of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code convicted appellant No. 1 under Section 323, IPC and released her under Section 4(1)(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Appellant No. 2 was convicted under Section 304 Part-1, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Hence the present appeal.2. The prosecution case is as follows :- On 25-3-1988 at about 7 a.m. all the accused persons were digging saroo from the land allegedly under the possession of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Naba Kumar Mishra Vs. Sachidananda Dalal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ori60
ORDERR.K. Patra, J.1. In this petition, election of respondent No. 1 from 105 -- Boudh Assembly Constituency to the Orissa Legislative Assembly is under challenge.2. General election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly took place in the month of March, 1995. Polling for the constituency in question took place on 9-3-1995. The petitioner contested the ejection as Congress candidate with the symbol 'Hand'. Respondent No. 1 was a candidate of the Janata Dal with the symbol 'Chakra'. Respondents 2 to 9 filed their nominations as candidates from different political parties and/or as independent candidates. Counting of votes took place on 11-3-1995. The petitioner secured 41,932 valid votes in his favour whereas respondent No. 1 got 44,423 valid votes in his favour. As respondent No. 1 secured the highest number of votes, he was declared elected. Being feltaggrieved by such declaration, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying to:--(i) order inspection, scrutiny and recount of al...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Chandra SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa Rep. by Secretary and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ori35
Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner, a licensee under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (in short, 'the Act') alleges inaction on the part of the opposite parties to deal with unauthorised milling by opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 in clear contravention of the provisions contained in the Act. It is stated that they are running rice mills without any licence. Petitioner had made grievance before the Sub-Collector, Kamakhyanagar. The Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, Kamakhyangagar has filed affidavit stating that coming to know about unauthorised installation of rice mills, proceedings have been initiated and prosecution reports have been submitted by the Inspector of Supplies (Marketing Inspection), Bhuban under Section 15 of the Act. Opp. party Nos. 4 to 7 take a stand that the petitioner has no existing licence and in any event has no ocus standi to present this writ application. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Hadibandhu Sahu v. State of Orissa, 1996 (1) IJ...
Tag this Judgment!Manab Kumar Mitra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ori52
Pasayat, J. 1. Grievance of the petitioner which has brought him before this Court is that he applied for renewal of licence granted to him under the P.W.D. Contractors' Registration Rules, 1967 (in short, the 'Rules') which has not been disposed of.2. A brief reference to the factual aspects as portrayed by petitioner would suffice:Petitioner was granted a certificate of registration in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules in the year 1977. The same was being renewed from time to time. He applied for renewal of his certificate of registration to act as a 'B' class contractor on 25-2-1995 for the period 1995-96 to 1997-98. The certificate was not renewed, and on the other hand he was asked torefund certain amounts allegedly due from him. Over this controversy correspondence was exchanged. Petitioner disputed his liability to pay anything as demanded by the authorities. Since he was not able to execute any contract work in the absence of a licence, he has moved this Court for a direction to the...
Tag this Judgment!Seetal Enterprises Vs. Tinna Oils and Chemicals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: 82(1996)CLT188; [1998]94CompCas889(Orissa); 1996(II)OLR112
Dipak Misra, J.1. The correctness of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First Court, Cuttack, in Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 1996, arising out of T. S. No. 18 of 1996, refusing to restrain the opposite party therein from encashing the bank guarantee involved in the suit is called in question by the plaintiff-appellant in this appeal.2. The essential facts which need narration for the present appeal are as follows :The appellant-plaintiff, a proprietorship concern, was appointed as a consignee agent by respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1-company for their product, namely, sunflower refined oil for the entire State of Orissa with effect from September 3, 1994. In pursuance of the agreement for such appointment the plaintiff deposited the security deposit and furnished a bank guarantee, bearing No. 95-96/1, for an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs for one year commencing from April 28, 1995. As averred by the plaintiff, it was his responsibility to provide proper storage for th...
Tag this Judgment!Bachatar Singh Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: 82(1996)CLT447; 1997CriLJ702; 1996(II)OLR74
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner, an accused in G.R. Case No. 3213 of 1937 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhubaneswar, for alleged commission of an offence under Section 279/ 304A, IPC has challenged the order of the Magistrate directing the defence counsel to furnish the correct address of PW 2. The accused-petitioner filed an application under Section 311, Cr PC to recall PW 1 and PW 4. The learned Magistrate, on perusal of the evidence of PW 1, having found that the crose-examination has not been effectively done and there is every chance that the defence may be prejudiced if PW 1 is not recalled for further evidence by the defence specially when the present advocate was engaged much after the date of examination of PW 1 and as such had no occasion to cross-examine properly. The application was allowed vide order dated 7-7-1994 and summons were directed to be issued on PW 1 and PW 4 for further examination fixing it to 29-7-1994.It appears from the order of th...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rajeswar Patra Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: 82(1996)CLT404; 1997CriLJ531
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjan, Berhampur, in S.C. No. 14/93 under Section 18 of S.C. No. 3/93(GDC)The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the N.D.P.S. Act').2. The accused-appellant, A. Rajeswar Patra was prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, being in possession of six bags of opium puppy capsules, found from the shop room and the adjacent room to the shop, which on weightment came to 85 K.Gs. in contravention of the provisions of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S. Act.3. The prosecution case shortly stated is that on 30-10-92 at 2.30 p.m., the Excise Sub-Inspector getting reliable information regarding possession of opium puppy by the accused-appellant in his house at Raghunath Bazar, he proceeded along with his staff and conducted search of the sho...
Tag this Judgment!Babaji Satyanarayan Das Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: 82(1996)CLT248; 1997CriLJ1041
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack passed in Sessions Trial No. 159 of 1990 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 304I, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 5 years.2. The short fact of the prosecution case was that the accused-appellant is the Babaji of 'Bidhar Moth' in village Kabalpur. On 13-10-1989 at about 11 A.M. the deceased went to his land situated near the said Math with one of his bulloc where the accused had raised Biri crop over math land and the bullock of the deceased damaged Some Biri plants for which caused a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and in course of such quarrel the accused dealt a lathi blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which he fell down with bleeding injury on his head and there was also bleeding from the nose and ear of the deceased. The persons present nearby including the Mataji of th...
Tag this Judgment!Gokulananda Mohanty Vs. Ranibala Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR256
Dipak Misra, J.1. Instances are not rare when procedural restraints are the substantial controversies and create a sense of helplessness and foster frustration among the innocent litigants. Delay being not condoned in preferring a Title Appeal at the instance of the defendants against the judgment and decree whereby right, title and interest of the valuable properties of the parties were determined and civil revision being carried from the said order of rejection and having met the same fate, the petitioner, a septuagenarian, has approached this Court invoking its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The factual scenario as emerges is that the opp. patty Nos. 1 to 4 as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 208.87 in the Court of learned Munsif, Jagatsinghpur for declaration of right, title, interest and possession of the suit land with the further declaration that the sale deed, Ext. A, is invalid and inoperetive with a further alternative prayer...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Naresh Chandra Das Vs. the O.S.i.C. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR358
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the parties.In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order under Annexure-6 whereby he was transferred (from the Finance Division of the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Limitted at Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the OSIC') to the office of the Orissa Timber and Engineering Works, Sunabeda. His further prayer is for directing opp. party No. 1 to maintain his inter se seniority vis-a-vis opp. party Nos. 3, 4 and 5.2. The facts involved in this case are simple. In response to the advertisement issued by opp. party No. 1,--the OSIC, the petitioner alongwith many others applied for the post of Assistant Manager (Finance). His application being in order, vide memo dated 23-4-1981 (Annexure-2) issued by the Managing Director of the OSIC, the petitioner was called for an interview on 16-5-1981. He was interviewed alongwith many others and was placed at serial No. 6 in the panel. Thereafter,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »