Orissa Court June 1998 Judgments
Sudhakar Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: 86(1998)CLT830; 1998CriLJ4720
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.2. This is the second application of the petitioner for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(inshort, 'theCode'). Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No. 586 of 1997 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal arising out of Dhenkanal P.S. Case No. 167 of 1997. He was working in the Collectorate, Dhenkanal and as stated, retired as Office Superintendent-cum-Nazir.learned Counsel for the petitioner states that on his retirement petitioner was given full retirement benefit and he possesses a sound service record. After his retirement, the office was auditted and in the audit report it has been shown regarding defalcation and misappropriation of huge amount along with the allegation of forgery etc.learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that there is not an iota of evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and that as per the audit report some other officials are involved. He thus prays that petitioner may be gra...
Tag this Judgment!Nilakantha Mishra Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1183
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Heard.2. This application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission on consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate.3. Petitioner is an accused in S. C. No. 89 of 1997 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna. On 3-2-98 petitioner was not present in the Court and a petition for representation Under Section 317 of the Code filed on the ground of illness of the petitioner was rejected because medical certificate was not filed in support of such illness. Learned Sessions Judge has further mentioned that two adjournments, in the meantime, had been granted to the petitioner to attend the Court. Accordingly, order was passed to issue N.B.W.A. against the petitioner.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is not a case of wilful default and when a petition for representation had been filed the Sess...
Tag this Judgment!Anirudha Das Vs. Ranjit Prasad Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR197
P.K. Misra, J.1. Though it was directed that the matter shall be listed along with Civil Review No. 111 of 1997, learned counsel for all the parties including the counsel for the present petitioner state that the Civil Review is not necessary to be taken along with this matter as the said Civil Review relates to the question of appointment of a receiver whereas the present Civil Revision relates to the question of transposition of defendant No. 12 as a plaintiff.2. On the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Civil Revision is taken up for hearing and final disposal.3. In a pending suit for partition, defendant No. 1 filed a petition to trampose defendant No. 12 as a plaintiff. The said petition having been rejected, the present Civil Revision has been filed by defendant No. 1.It cannot be said that the order of the trial Court is per se illegal or without jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the petition for transposition should have been filed either by defendant No. 12 h...
Tag this Judgment!Debasis Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1084; 1998(II)OLR342
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. After this bail application was heard and orders were reserved, the counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter and the matter was listed under the heading 'To be Mentioned'. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail application had become infructuous as the petitioner had been taken into custody by Police from Gujarat and produced before the concerned Magistrate at Rajkot City. The aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner is correct and the bail application is liable to be disposed of as infructuous. However, in view of the question of law involved in the matter, it is appropriate to decide the question of law raised in the petition.2. It is alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. The case was registered as Malviya P.S. Case No. 149/98 in the State of Gujarat. It is alleged that the said offence had been committed by the petitioner while he was serving in a private Company in Rajkot...
Tag this Judgment!Muralidhar Sutar and ors. Vs. Balamani Sutar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR191
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal under Clause 10 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948, judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 185 of 1998 is assailed.2. A brief reference to factual aspects would suffice.A suit was filed for partition by Balamani, the present respondent for a decree to the effect that he is the son of Kali representing one branch, and was thus entitled to half share in the property which originally belonged to one Dinabandhu, as branch of Dhadi was extinct, and the third branch was of Nidhi, the father of Hadibandhu the defendant. Following genelogy was set out in the plaint. Dinabandhu ______________________________________ | | | Mani Dhadi Nidhi | =Chhachi | | | Kali Hadibandhu | (Defendant) | Balamani (Plaintiff)The present appellants are the sons of Hadibandhu, the original defendant. Hadibandhu's stand was that plaintiff Balamani was not the son of Kali as claimed, and was only a foster child. He had been given 4 annas 6 paisa shame on...
Tag this Judgment!Abhimanyu Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4513; 1998(II)OLR198
P.K. Misra, J.1. Petitioner is one of the accused persons in C.R. Case No. 3136 of 1997 in the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. It is alleged that the petitioner along with others committed offences under Sections 366A, 343, 354 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Petitioner has been released on bail. It is not disputed that a motor cycle bearing number OR-02-E-7477 has been seized by the police and the petitioner is the registered owner of such motorcycle. It is suspected that the said motor cycle had been used for the commission of the offences alleged. The petitioner had filed an application before the S.D.J.M. for release of the said motor cycle in his zima. The said application having been rejected, petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 78/97 which has been dismissed. Hence, the present application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revisional Court has committed an error ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Kumar Das Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR262
ORDER24.6.1998.- 1. The writ petitioner is Naib-Sarpanch of Durgi Gram Panchayat. The Sarpanch of the Durgi Gram Panchayat has gone on leave till the end of this month. The Sub-Collector, Gunpur directed that Naib-Sarpanch cannot attend the meeting of Panchayat Samiti in absence of Sarpanch. Hence the present petition.It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that meeting of the Gram Panchayat Samiti will take place shortly.To consider this point, we have to interpret Section 16 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 and Section 21 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1965.We have heard the learned counsels at length and we quote below Section 16 of the Orissa Panchayat Act, 1959 and Section 21 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1965.'16. Constitution of the Panchayat Samiti (1) Every Block shall have Samiti consisting of the following members, namely :(a) the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Samiti elected in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3).(b) the Bloc...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harimohan Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ1345; 87(1999)CLT219
P.K. Misra, J.1. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer challenges the award of the 1st Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to claimant-respondent No. 1.2. The claimant is the son of the deceased who was a Government servant and drawing a salary of about Rs. 1,600 per month at the time of his death. On 28.1.1993, the deceased was proceeding from Marsaghai to Mahakalpada on foot. At that time autorickshaw bearing registration No. OR-05A-2568 belonging to the present respondent No. 2 came from behind and knocked down the deceased who sustained grievous head injury along with fracture and other injuries because of the accident. Subsequently, the deceased was removed to the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Claim application was filed claiming Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation.The owner as well as the insurance company in separate written statements denied the allegations made in the claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Rabia Bibi (Dead) After Her Md. Abdul Samad and ors. Vs. Liakat A ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: 87(1999)CLT19; 1998(II)OLR154
P.K. Misra, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present Civil Revisions are as follows : The original decree-holder had filed H.R.C. Case No. 56 of 1977 against the predecessor-in-interest of the present opposite parties. The said proceeding was decreed ex parte by the House Rent Controller, Sambalpur, and an order of eviction was passed. Before initiation of the execution proceeding for executing the order of eviction, the original judgment-debtor expired. Thereafter, the original decree-holder filed Execution Case No. 31 of 1989 in the Court of the Munsif, Sambalpur, along with a petition seeking permission to execute the decree against the heirs of the original judgment-debtor. In the said execution proceeding, one of the heirs of the judgment-debtor, namely present opposite party No. 1 (a), filed an objection under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the maintainability of the execution case. In the said objection, the following three contentions were raised :(1) The Exe...
Tag this Judgment!Narasingha Gopal Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: 86(1998)CLT717; 1998CriLJ3587; 1998(II)OLR114
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of conviction under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment. Initially, the petitioner and two other accused persons faced trial under Sections 307, 342/34, Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that they had wrongfully confined P.W. 4 and had attempted to commit the murder of P.W. 1, the informant. The trial Court convicted the three accused persons including the petitioner under Sections 307, 342/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 ,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 342/34, Indian Penal Code. In appeal, the appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the conviction under Section 342/34, Indian Penal Code, in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »