Orissa Court July 1998 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.
Malaya Kumar Mohanta Vs. Collector, Mayurbhanj and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ori5
P.K. Misra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 32(2)(iv) of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, 1991 (Orissa Act 17 of 1991). The appellant and respondents 4 to 9 had contested election to Zilla Parishad from Muruda-II (Zilla Parishad Constituency No. 40). In the said election, respondent No. 4 was declared elected having secured the highest votes. The present appellant had secured, the next highest votes. The present appellant filed Election M.J.C. No. 13 of 1997 before the District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada, challenging the election of respondent No. 4, inter alia, on the ground that the present respondent No. 4 was not eligible to contest the election as he had more than two children and his fourth child was born on 4-6-1995. Respondent No. 4 who was opposite party No. 4 before the Court below filed a written statement countering the allegations made in the election petition. It was stated in the written statement that all the issues of opposite party No. 4 were born within the cut-o...
The Film Development Corporation of Orissa Limited Vs. Sri Debendranat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR209
S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Film Development Corporation of Orissa Limited, a Government of Orissa undertaking against the Urban Co-operative Bank, Smt. Indurekha Mohanty and her husband Sri P. K. Mohanty and also against the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cuttack. During the pendency of the writ petition, P. K. Mohanty died and in his place, his legal heirs were substituted.2. On 30.4.1982, the petitioner-Corporation, opposite party-Bank and opposite party No. 3, Smt. Indurekha Mohanty, proprietor entered into a Tripartite Agreement whereupon the Bank-opposite party advanced a term loan of Rs. 4,58,990/- and the petitioner-Corporation, a soft loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- to opposite party No. 3. The loans were secured by mortgage of immovable properties, the Bank having first charge and the Corporation second charge in the said properties. Annexure-3 is the said agreement. The loan was secured f...
Gouranga Samal Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR623
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') has been filed with the prayer to quash the trial of Sessions Case No. 329/96 of the Court of Addl. C.J.M.-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack or to fix a time limit for disposal of the case.3. Sole grievance of the petitioner is that he is an under trial prisoner and in spite of that no promptness is shown by the trial Court for early disposal of the case i.e. S.T. Case No. 329/96. It is stated that the matter was adjourned for seven dates between 23.9.1996 and 5.2.1997 for consideration of the charge. From the stage of examination of witnesses which started on 9.4.1997 till 3.6.1998 out of twelve only six charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined. If that is true, it exhibits a sorry slate of affairs relating to lack of control over the proceeding by the trial Court. If witnesses are not responding to the summons issued the trial Court should not remain complac...
Rabinarayan Das Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 86(1998)CLT655; 1998(II)OLR621
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.2. On consent of both the parties this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission.3. Order dt. 21.2.1994 in G.R. Case No. 617/92 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Salipur vide which learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 306/493, IPC and issued N.B.W.A. against the accused persons is under challenge in this application. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that evidence collected during investigation does not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 306/493, IPC and learned J.M.F.C. without due application of mind mechanically accepted the charge-sheet and took cognizance of the said offences and also issued N.B.W.A. against him. He, however, argues that the application be disposed of with a direction to the lower Court to hear the petitioner in that matter in accordance with the ratio in the cas...
Birla Tyres and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4401
C.R. Pal, J.1. The petitioners have filed these petitions one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the other under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with the identical prayer in both the petitions to quash the F.I.R. dated 12-1-1996, Annexure-2 of R.C.No. 7-4 of 1998 and the investigation undertaken by the opposite parties 2 to 4 in pursuance of Annexure-2.Since the petitioners are same and prayer in both the petitions are identical, the petitions are taken up together for disposal.2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are as follows :-The petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in production of tyres in its factory established in the district of Balasore with its Head Office at Chanpur in the district of Balasore and is represented by Shri Deepak Tandon, Joint President, the petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 3 is the Senior Manager(Commercial) of the aforesaid company.On the allegation that the petitioners named above entered into criminal cons...
Smt. Koili Bahalia Vs. Bijay Kumar Das and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR251
P.K. Misra, J.1. Since these two appeals are directed against two similar orders, both of them are taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In both the matters, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the applications of the claimant-appellant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for payment of compensation under no-fault liability, as envisaged in Section 140 of the Act. The Tribunal has observed that the names of the deceased had not been indicated in the FIR and the Final Form and as such, it was difficult on the part of the Tribunal to find out as to whether the deceased under both the cases had died on account of the accident in question.3. After having heard the learned counsels for both parties and perused the lower Court records in both the cases, I am of the view that the orders of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In a proceeding under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal is required to find out prima facie regarding an...
Abdul Habib Khan Vs. Rafat Begum
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR616
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. On consent, this revision is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission.2. Vide order dated 8.8.1996 in Criminal Proceeding No. 282 of 1992 Learned Judge, Family Court disposed of three petitions filed by the petitioner by way of rejecting two petitions and allowing in part the third petition i.e. the petition for amendment of the show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he presses this revision only against the order in partly allowing the amendment petition and not on the order in rejecting the other two petitions. Hence, for the purpose of record, this revision is confined to examine legality and correctness of that part of the impugned order.3. Facts relevant for the present revision are stated thus:On 23.7.1992 the opposite party filed petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') claiming for maintenance from the petitioner on the grou...
Singal Trading Co. Vs. Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR507
A. Pasayat, J.1. Delay in presentation of second appeal filed by the Revenue having been condoned by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short, the 'Tribunal'), the assessee has filed this writ application for interference. According to it, no reason whatsoever much less possible, was indicated to warrant such condonation.2. Sans unnecessary details factual position which is almost disputed is as follows :Petitioner filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax, Cuttack I Range, Cuttack against the order of assessment made for the assessment year 1991 -92. By order dated 16.1.1994 the Assistant Commissioner adduced the demand from Rs. 50,716/- to Rs. 3,316/-. The order was issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 29.3.1994, and same was received in the Office of the Commissioner of Sales-tax on the same day. The last date for filing the second appeal was 28.5.1994. But the appeal was actually filed on 24.9.1994. Thus, there was a delay of 120 days in presentation of the app...
Goutam Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ838; 1998(II)OLR194
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Argument in this case was heard from both the sides on 14.5.1998 but as the petitioners wanted to cite some decisions therefore the case was adjourned. At the stage of hearing of the aforesaid case both the parties consented that this application should be disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission and accordingly both the parties participated and advanced arguments. On 29.6.1998 when the matter had been listed for further hearing i.e. for filing citations, both the parties did not appear. No citation was filed on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, order was passed to list this case today for judgment.2. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code') accused persons of I.C.C. Case No. 86/97 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Narasinghpur have challenged the legality and the correctness of the order of cognizance taken by the Magistrate vide the impugned order dt. 27.1.1998. It reveals from the complaint petition and the stat...
Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: 86(1998)CLT637; 1998(II)OLR203
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present writ petition at the instance of one Krushna Chandra Sahu and another Narendra Sahu against State of Orissa by impleading Commissioner, Excise, Orissa, Collector, Ganjam at Chatrapur and Superintendent of Excise, Ganjam seek the following reliefs :'..........that your lordships be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue a Rule/in asking the opposite parties to show cause as to why the petitioners shall not be paid back the money deposited by the petitioner under Annexure - 1 along with compensation and if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said rule absolute and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to refund the consideration amount deposited by the petitioner under Annexure-1 and also further direct that adequate compensation should be given also be paid to the petitioners and in the alternative the Hon'ble Court direct the opposite parties to refund the consi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »