Orissa Court September 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.
Balaram Das and ors. Vs. Ganesh Karan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR598
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendants have filed this Civil Revision against the judgment dated 18.9.1996 whereunder the appellate Court has framed an issue and remitted the said issue to the trial Court for disposal. Evidently, such an order of remand comes within the scope of Order 41, Rule 25, C.P.C. The sole question is whether the appellate Court was justified in passing the said order. It is not necessary to recount in detail the cases of rival parties. On a perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court it appears that after recounting the cases of both parties and noticing the findings of the trial Court, the appellate Court, in paragraphs 5 and 7 (it may be noted that there is no paragraph - 6 in the judgment) has noticed the contentions of both sides. In paragraph-8, which contains the entire discussion of the appellate Court is extracted hereunder:'Heard counsel for both the sides and after careful scrutiny of the contentions advanced by both the sides, I am of the considered view tha...
Narayan Sahoo Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(I)OLR181
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Short but substantial question which has been raised in this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') is as to whether a caste not notified as Scheduled Caste in the Presidential Order and Notification under Article 341 of the Constitution can be regarded as Scheduled Caste being described in that manner in the District Gazetteer.2. Relevant facts may be indicated for reference. Petitioner is one of the accused persons in T.R. No. 25/28 of 96-95 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda. In that case cognizance for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 506/34, IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the Act') has been taken. On 5.11.1996 petitioner filed an application challenging the order of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the Act, on the ground that the informant being a 'Khatia' by caste and not being 'K...
Rajendra Kumar Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR534
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The writ petitioner, Rajendra Kumar Pradhan, has asked for the following relief:'.......... issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the opp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned approval in favour of O.P. No. 4 as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in Annexure-8 should not be quashed;And as to why opp. parties 1 and 2 should not be directed to approve the petitioner as Junior Clerk-cum-typist and release regular salary from the date of eligibility;And as to why opp. parties 1 and 2 should not be directed to approve the post in question as per 1983 Amendment Regulations;If the opposite parties fail to show cause or sufficient cause the rule be made absolute;And issued any other order/direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case......'2. Annexure-8 to the writ petition is an Office Order No. 2G-63 95(+2):15870/dated 23.3.1996 issued from the office of the Director of Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. It transpires from the said Annex...
Judhistir Das Vs. Jhari Das and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR652
P.K. Misra, J.1. This revision is at the instance of one of the accused persons challenging the legality of the order dated 7.11.1997 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banki, in ICC Case No. 14 of 1996, whereunder the learned Magistrate did not permit the counsel for the accused persons to put some questions to C.W. 2 with reference to his statement in the enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. While rejecting the said petition, the S.D.J.M. observed that the accused persons are at liberty to further cross-examine C.W. 2 as per law, possibly meaning thereby that C.W. 2 can be further cross-examined after framing of charge. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to the recording made in the deposition to the following effect:'........... Since the accused wanted to contradict the statement of the witnesses with his previous statement under Section 202, Cr.P.C. before the Court. I do not wanted to accept the contention as statements during 202, C...
Name Withheld Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR650
P.K. Misra, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing G.R. Case No. 1114 of 1991 in the file of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.2. The G.R. Case was started on the basis of the FIR lodged by opposite party No. 3, father of opposite party No. 2, alleging that opposite party No. 2 had been kidnapped by the present petitioner. The present petitioner relied upon the affidavit of opposite party No. 2 sworn to before the Notary Public, Bhubaneswar, to the effect that opposite party No. 2 intended not to proceed with the case. Subsequent to filing of the present petition, notice was issued to opposite party No. 2 as well as opposite party No. 3, the informant. Though there is no appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 3 states that, in fact, the informant does not intend to prosecute further the G.R. Case as his daughter (opposite party No. 2) is now married. The learned counsel for opposite pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›