Orissa Court October 1998 Judgments
Bhaskar Patra Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, Punjab and Sind Bank ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: 87(1999)CLT836; (2000)ILLJ802Ori
P.K. Mohanty, J. 1. The petitioner, a Clerk working in Punjab and Sind Bank, assails the order of the Disciplinary Authority in suspending him by order dated April 23, 1991 (Annexure-1) and in imposing the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding under Annexure-10. 2. The short facts of the case bereft of unnecessary details is that the petitioner joined as a Clerk under the opposite parties in the year 1982 and while he was working as such, by order dated April 23, 1991, he was suddenly suspended by opposite party No. 2, who happens to be the disciplinary authority under Clause 19.5 of the IV Bipartite Settlement. On receipt of the suspension order, the petitioner made a representation to opposite party No.2 requesting him to let him know the reasons for suspension, in order that he may explain his innocence. After a lapse of nearly four months opposite party No.2 served a charge-sheet and simultaneously decided to conduct a ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmidhar Behera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR79
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court Under Section 47 (a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge while confirming the order of conviction modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment to one month's rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine.2. The concurrence is alleged to have taken place on 5.6.1991 at about 11.30 A.M. It is alleged that the Excise Sub-Inspector (P.W.I) along with other Excise Constables while performing patrol duty at Haldipali Chhak of Bargarh found the accused coming on a bi-cycle carrying a gunny bag. On suspicion the accused was detained and on opening the bag, it was found that 20 litres of illicitly distilled liquor had been kept inside a motor tube. After effecting seizure and testing the liquor by undertaking litmus pap...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Padhi Vs. Budhu Sitari and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR126
P.K. Misra, J.1. This appeal has been filed Under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act challenging the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (in short, the 'Commissioner') directing that compensation of Rs. 1,17,782/- is payable to the claimants. The Commissioner directed that the aforesaid amount should be paid by opposite party No. 2 in the claim application, namely the Orissa Mining Corporation and further observed that the said Corporation was at liberty to realise the compensation amount from opposite party No. 1 Raghunath Padhi, the present appellant. It is not disputed that the amount of Rs. 1,17,782/- has been deposited by the Orissa Mining Corporation before the Commissioner: The appellant has challenged the award because ultimately the amount was directed to be recovered from him.2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to go into the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the claimants who are the parents of deceased Siba S...
Tag this Judgment!Balaram Rout Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1703
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of conviction and sentence imposed concurrently by the trial Court and the appellate Court convicting the petitioner under Section 376, Indian Penal Code (in short, the 'I.P.C.') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. The petitioner along with co-accused was prosecuted. The petitioner was charged under Section 376, whereas, the co-accused was charged Under Section 376/114, I.P.C. Both the accused persons were also charged under Sections 342 and 392, I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted both the accused persons of the charges under Sections 342 and 392, I.P.C. However, the petitioner was convicted under Section 376 and the co-accused was convicted under Section 376/114, I.P.C. Both were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. The present petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1987, which has been dismissed.2. As per the prosecution case, while the prosecutrix (P.W.I) had gone to at...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Sekhar Senapati Vs. Suneeta Senapati and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR129
P.K. Misra, J.1. This is an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a proceeding in G.R.Case No. 324 of 1995 pending in the file of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir.2. The main contention raised in this petition is that the allegations in the FIR do not make out a prima facie case. However, in view of the subsequent happy event, it is not necessary to consider as to whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offence or not. During the pendency of this proceeding, the petitioner who is the husband and opp. party No. 1, his wife decided to give a fresh beginning to their conjugal life by forgetting the past dispute. A joint petition has been filed today supported by an affidavit by the petitioner and opp. party No. 1. Incidentally, both of them are highly educated persons and doctors. The petitioner is serving as a doctor under Railways at Kharagpur and the opp. party No. 1 is now posted at Machhkund under the State Government. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu Charan Panda Vs. Narayan Chandra Dhir
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR96
P.K. Misra, J.1. JudgmentTdebtor is the petitioner. The decree- holder, who is also the auction-purchaser, filed Execution Case No. 119 of 1987 for realisation of decretal dues of Rs. 927/- and cost. On 3.8.1989, Sale Proclamation was issued for realisation of sum of Rs. 1333.00 and it was indicated that the auction of the property shall take place on 28.9.1989 at 12 P.M. in the Court of the Munsif, Jajpur. On 6.8.1989, the said sale proclamation was served on the judgment-debtor. Before the first date of auction, the judgment-debtor filed an application for adjournment of the sale. As a matter of fact, the judgment-debtor paid a total sum of Rs. 900/- on three different dates, that is to say, on 23.9.1989, 12.12.1989 and 20.2.1990, and the date of auction was adjourned from day to day. Subsequently, on 16.3,1990, the judgment-debtor filed fresh application seeking for time to make payment and the matter was adjourned to 30.3.1990 for sale. On the said date, the judgment-debtor was abs...
Tag this Judgment!Brundaban Sahu and anr. Vs. Pabitra Kumar Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR122
P.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs have filed this revision against the order of the trial Court refusing their petition under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the 'C.P.C.') for amendment.2. The suit was primarily one for partition along with certain other reliefs. Paragraph-4(a) of the prayer portion of the plaint reads as follows:'4(a). Directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit huller-cum-sheller rice mill in the same sound condition on the date of when it was entrusted to the defendant to run the same on behalf of the plaintiff in his capacity as manager or in the alternative, direct the defendant to perform his part of contract in purchasing the same from the plaintiff under proper and valid.'The defendant in paragraph-13 of his written statement stated :'13. That as per the agreement to sell dated 19.7.1985 the defendant was always ready with money and willing to purchase the interest of the plaintiff in the land and the mill as per agreement and was a...
Tag this Judgment!Nrusingha Prasad Sahoo Vs. Smt. Rama Kumari Devi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR177
P.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision against the orders of the trial Court and appellate Court rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the 'C.P.C.').2. There is no dispute that the present opposite party is the owner of a building known as 'Garden Bungalow' at Jeypore. It is claimed that Messrs P.R.Tata and Co. of Bombay had entered into an arrangement with the opposite party for the purpose of carrying on business in the district of Koraput and the said Company had taken the disputed house on monthly rent from the previous owner, the ex-Ruler of Jeypore, in 1948. It is further claimed that the arrangement between the Company and the present opposite party had ceased since 1980, but the accounts had not been settled. It is further stated that since there was dispute between the Company and the present opposite party, the opposite party is taking steps to get back possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Subhasish Ray Vs. Brundaban Chandra Mohapatra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR665
P.K. Misra, J.1. This revision has been filed by Third party-intervenor against order No. 24, dated 30.7.1997, passed by the District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, permitting withdrawal of Title Appeal No. 31 of 1995.2. It is not necessary to recount the facts in detail and only certain relevant events are noted.The present opposite party No. 1 who was the defendant in Title Suit No. 238 of 1984 filed by present opposite party No. 1 filed Title Appeal No..31 of 1995 before the District Judge, Khurda, against the decree of the trial Court. The present petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement to purchase the disputed property from present opposite party No. 1 and it is stated that an agreement was executed on 17.2.1993 and a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs had been paid. The balance amount of Rs. 1 lakh was allegedly paid subsequently on 15.12.1995. It appears that during the pendency of the Title Appeal, a petition was filed by the apellant and the respondent in the Title Appeal for effe...
Tag this Judgment!Sarfaraz Alam Vs. South Eastern Railway and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR604
ORDER1. 12.10.1998 - The present writ petition is at the instance of one Sarfaraz Alam seeking reliefs in the following manner:'The petitioner, therefore, prays that Your Lordships would to graciously pleased to admit this written petition, call for the records from the opp. parties and after hearing the parties allow the same with cost and issue a writ/ writs in nature of certiorari/mandamus quashing Annexure-1 and the award of tender in favour of opp. party No. 3 and commanding the opp. parties to award the tender in question in favour of the petitioner.'2. Both the S.E. Railways as well as opposite party No. 3 are contesting this proceeding. It is stated in the writ petition that the dispute arose with regard to tender for cycle-stand at the Railway Station, Rourkela. The petitioner alleges that the offer given by him was much higher he having quoted Rs. 4,80,000.00 per year whereas opposite party No. 3 who is alleged to be successful had quoted only Rs. 2,73,000.00 per year. Althou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›