Orissa Court September 1997 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.
State of Orissa Vs. P.P. Agrawala and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-08-1997
Reported in: 85(1998)CLT179
ORDERS. N. Phukan, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Bolangir in Misc. Judicial Appeal No. 2 of 1991 setting aside the order dated 28-5-1990 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bolangir Forest Division in case No. OP 212 of 1989-90. The Authorised Officer, by his aforesaid order passed under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act (for short, 'the Act') had confiscated 438 pieces of green bamboo together with the vehicle bearing registration number OPS 3316, alleged to have been used in the commission of the forest offence. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :--The Forester, Deogaon, while on petrol duty on 16-10-1989, intercepted the truck in question near village Sikuan on Goibahal-Bhutiarbahal road. It is alleged that the truck was carrying 438 pieces of green bamboo without valid transit permit. The truck was brought to Deogaon and was seized. A copy of the seizure...
Yasobanta Sahu Alias Yasobanta Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Orissa, Represe ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(II)OLR391
A. Pasayat, J.1. Yasobanta Sahu alias Yasobanta Kumar Sahu (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') has questioned the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Sundargarh in purported exercise of power under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short, 'the Act'). Main ground of attack to the order of detention is that there is unexplained delay in disposal of the representation made by the detenu questioning his detention. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has been vitiated as the fact of acquittal in many cases which have been enumerated in the grounds of detention has not been considered and in fact it has been indicated as if those cases are pending. The detenu asked for Oriya translation of certain annexures which were refused, and the Central Government has not disposed of the representation made to it.2. Before we deal with the grounds of attack it is necessary to make a brief reference to the grounds of detention which according to t...
Gadadhara Behera Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1997
Reported in: 86(1998)CLT98; 1997(II)OLR396
R.K. Patra, J. 1. The order dated 14.3.1997 at Annexure-2 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in Execution Case No. 9 of 1995 holding that the petitioner cannot recover the amount of compensation from the Land Acquisition Collector and he can do so only from the party who had received the said amount wrongfully is the subject matter of challenge in this application.2. The petitioner purchased land ad-measuring Ac.0.13 under plot No. 1338 appertaining to khata No. 303 in village Ganeshwarpur from Rabindranath Behera and Khagendra Behera by way of a registered sale-deed dated 30.4.1971 and from the date of purchase he continued to remain in possession of the said land. The Tahasildar, Balasore by order dated 3.1.1981 mutated the land in question in the name of the petitioner who had been paying rent regularly from the time of purchase. The allegation of the petitioner is that the land in question was acquired by the State Government as per its declaration No. 67...
Sarat Kumar Moharana Vs. M. Rajsekhar Reddy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1997
Reported in: 2000(I)OLR494
P.K. Misra, J.1. The claimant in a claim application under the Motor Vehicles Act has filed this application Under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for transferring Misc. Case No. 25(C) of 1992 filed by him before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balasore, to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, for trial and disposal, mainly on the ground that it would be convenient for him to prosecute the matter at Cuttack, having regard to his condition of health.2. On the assertions made in the application Under Section 24 of the Code which have not been rebutted, prima facie, I feel that a case has been made out for transfer of the case. However, I am unable to accede to such prayer for transfer in exercise of power Under Section 24 of the Decided on 5th September, 1997. Code, as according to me, the Claims Tribunal not being a 'Court subordinate'' to the High Court, within the meaning of Section 24 of the Code, such an application is no...
Sanat Alias Santha Mishra Alias Sanat Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Orissa ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ889
A. Pasayat, J.1. Questioning legality of the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Sundargarh in purported exercise of power under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short, 'the Act') this habeas corpus application has been filed.2. Background facts, which led to passing of detention order as evident from the order are essentially as follows :-Sanat alias Santha Mishra (here in after referred to as 'the detenu') indulged in terrorising the innocent public and was involved in a series of criminal cases like criminally intimidating the public, creating a sense of terror in the locality being armed with deadly weapon like fire-arms, explosives etc. He was also in the habit of attacking Government servants who refused to yield to his undue desires. As a result of such activities the general public were panic-stricken. On 28-16-1996, a station diary entry was registered against the detenu in the Town Police Station, Sundargarh in this regard. Seventeen instance...
Srimati Sundermani Dei Vs. Rama Chandra Mahari and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(II)OLR513
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The present appellant had filed Title Appeal No. 15/43 of 1993/90 against the de9ision of the trial Court in O.S. No. 127/82. The said title appeal was posted to 2.1.1997 for hearing. On the said date, though hazira had been filed on behalf of the appellant, none appeared on behalf of the appellant when the appeal was called on for hearing and ultimately the appeal was dismissed for default. Subsequently, an application under Order 41, Rule 19, Code of Civil Procedure, was filed for re-admission of the appeal. In the said application it was stated that though the lawyer had filed the hazira, the file had been taken for engaging fresh set of lawyers. It was further stated that the lawyer who had earlier appeared in the case could not appear at the time of hearing as the file was not with him. The contesting opposite parties before the lower Court had filed objection denying these allegations. The appellate Court refused to re-admit the appeal on the ground that since h...
Sadasiba Nayak and ors. Vs. Zone Officer No. I, Upper Kolab Hydro Elec ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: 1997(II)OLR324
P.K. Misra, J.1. The claimants in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act have filed this revision. It is stated that the reference numbered as M.J.C. No. 59 of 1987 in the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore, was taken up before the Lok Adalat for disposal, but due to illness of petitioner No. 2, no steps were taken on behalf of the present petitioners and consequently, the award was confirmed. Therefore, an application was filed under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 25.10.1992. The said application having been rejected as not maintainable, the present Civil Revision has been filed.2. The Court below has held that since the award by the Collector had been confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act should have been filed and as such an application under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, is not maintainable.3. Law is now well-settled that even though remedy of appeal is...
Pramila Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)4; 84(1997)CLT727; 1998CriLJ1259; 1997(II)OLR489
S.C. Datta, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing the order dated 9.8.1984 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal taking cognizance against the petitioner in C.R. Case No. 159 of 1994.2. The petitioner is an Asst. Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Smt. Haripriya Das, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhenkanal. It is alleged that one Sri Sasanka Sekhar Rath, Headmaster of Laxmidhar High School, Dhenkanal lodged a complaint with the police on 24.3.1994 making certain false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner. It has been further alleged that the petitioner along with one Rabin Dutta entered the office of the informant and asked the informant in high tone to order his clerk and peon to go out of the office room and on refusal by the informant the petitioner broke the pen-stand and thereafter she took away some documents pertaining to her sister, Urmila, who was serving as an Asst. T...
Surya Narayan Panda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3050
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for one month. The appeal by the petitioner having been dismissed, the present revision has been filed.2. There is no dispute that the petitioner had married P.W. 3 on 17-5-1986. It is alleged by the prosecution that the wife (P.W. 3) was being harassed from time to time for non-fulfilment of demand for dowry. The petitioner and three others were charged under Sections 498A, 495 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6A of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the petitioner alone was convicted under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code and all others were acquitted by the trial Court.3. When the revision came up for admission on 28-10-1996, an order was passed admitting the revision on the question of sentence. In spite of the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has ve...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›