Orissa Court January 2000 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.
Pratap Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(I)OLR195
P.K. Misra, J.1. One Badal alias Soumya Ranjan Mohanty (hereinafter called the 'detenu') was detained Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 65 of 1980, as per the order dated 22. 3. 1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack. The present writ application seeking for a writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the brother of the detenu. Though several grounds have been taken in the writ petition and pressed into service at the time of hearing of the writ application, it is unnecessary to deal with all such contentions, as in our opinion, the writ application is to succeed on one ground, namely on the ground of undue delay in disposing the representation of the detenu.2. Before dealing with this point, it is necessary to notice the relevant dates. As already indicated, the order of detention was passed on 22. 3. 1 999 and the detaining authority forwarded all papers including grounds of detention to the State Government for approval on 26. 3. 1 999. The State Government app...
Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra Vs. Nilakantha Rath and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(I)OLR294
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The opposite party has not entered appearance after service of notice.2. Petitioner is the complainant in I.C.C. No. 175 of 1991 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurda. On 11.10.1991 he filed a complaint petition alleging commission of offences Under Sections 427/448, IPC against the opposite party members who were the accused persons in that case. In the complaint petition, petitioner has stated that because of the demolition of the compound wall complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand). In his initial statement, however, petitioner did not state the amount of loss which he sustained. On 28.1 0.1 991, the S.D.J.M. after perusing the complaint petition and initial statement of the complainant took cognizance of the offences Under Sections 426/34, IPC. Thereafter, the accused appeared, accusation was explained to him as per the summons procedure and trial taken up. During the mi...
Smt. Namita Bose Vs. Deepak Kumar Bose
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: 89(2000)CLT564; 2000(I)OLR216
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.2. Petitioner's move to sustain a second complaint on the self- same allegations having been turned down by learned S. D. J. M. Cuttack in his order on 5. 1. 1995 in I. C. C. No. 95 of 1994 and which was maintained by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in his order dated 29. 3. 1995 in Criminal Revision No. 29 of 1995, she has approached this Court for legal remedy seeking invocation of inherent power Under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').3. To adjudicate the issue relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, is placed as follows:Marital status came into being between the petitioner and the opp. party, as stated, on 4. 5. 1974. That relationship was shattered followed with an order for maintenance in her favour in 1984 in a proceeding Under Section 125 of the Code vide order in Criminal Misc. Case No. 301 of 1982. She alleges that at the time of desertion, opp. party retained her 'Stridhana' i. e., prese...
Abdul Jahangir and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: 89(2000)CLT280; 2000CriLJ1560
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioners are the accused persons in I.C.C. Case No. 47 of 1997 which merged with G.R. Case No. 274 of 1997 under the following facts and circumstances.2. On 2-5-1997, Ashema Bibi, Opposite Party No. 2, filed the complaint petition registered as I.C.C. Case No. 47 of 1997 in the Court of J.M.F.C. Salipur. In that complaint petition, she made allegations against her husband Abdul Jahangir (petitioner No. 1) and the other petitioners regarding demand of dowry and ill-treatment and torture for not fulfilling the dowry demand constituting the offences under Sections 498A/323/506/34, I.P.C. and Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act. On that date, learned Magistrate passed the impugned order which reads as hereunder-Order No. 1 dated 2-5-97: Complainant petition is filed through Advocate, Sri P.K. Kanungo and others. Register, Advocate for the complainant, stating that the complaint petition may be sent to O.I.C. Mahanga P.S. for necessary investigating treating the sam...
Niranjan Patra and ors. Vs. C.J.M. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: 89(2000)CLT420; 2000CriLJ1600
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Criminal Misc. Case No. 3084 of 1998 has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order dated 12-5-1998 which was passed in rejecting the petition under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') filed by the petitioners to recall P.W. 7 Kedar Ch. Jena, A.S.I. of Police for cross-examination in S.T. Case No. 106 of 1997 of the Court of C.J.M. cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack. Criminal Misc. Case No. 3085 of 1998 under Section 482 of the Code has been filed to set aside the other part of the aforesaid order dated 12-5-1998 in which petitioners prayer to recall witnesses and to call for the records of S.T. Case Nos. 509 of 1995 and 247 of 1995 was rejected.2. Criminal Misc. Case No. 3084/98 relates to rejection of the petition dated 6-2-1998 (Annexure-1 in that Misc. case). Similarly, Criminal Misc. Case No. 3085/98 relates to rejection of the petition dated 18-12-1997.3. It appears from the impugned common order dated 12-5-19...
Satyabrata Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)15; 89(2000)CLT391; 2000CriLJ1823
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. In this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'the Code') petitioner has assailed correctness of the order passed by the S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack on 22-11-96 in C.A. Case No. 1286 of 1995 (Annexure-7) purporting to be one under Section 348 of the Code and the dismissal of the appeal by the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, under Section 341 of the Code preferred by the petitioner in the Court of Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Appeal No. 163/96 vide the impugned judgment dated 6-12-96.2. Petitioner is one of the accused persons in C.A. Case No. 1286 of 1995 and the offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 406/34, I.P.C., and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the Court of S.D.J.M., he filed an application praying for action under Section 340 of the Code against the opposite parties 2 to 4 on the ground that at the time of hearing of his bail application filed and moved in the High Court under Section 418 of the Code,...
Narendranath Dalai Vs. Managing Director, Tribal Development Co-operat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: 89(2000)CLT537; (2000)IILLJ222Ori
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was an employee under the Tribal Development Co-operative Corporation, Orissa. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and ultimately by order dated June 3, 1988 he was removed from the service as per Annexure-6. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal as contemplated under the Tribal Development Co-operative Corporation Employees Disciplinary Proceedings & Appeal Rules, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Rules'). The said appeal has been rejected by the appellate authority by passing the following order:-'On careful perusal of the record, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Managing Director. The delinquent had been afforded all opportunities to present his case at the enquiry stage and the present petition does not bring out any new ground or argument. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is rejected.'The order of removal confirmed in appeal is under challenge.3. In Rule 14 of the Rules, the manner o...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nalini Dehury and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1796; (2000)IILLJ811Ori
P.K. Misra, J.1. The Insurer has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act challenging the judgment passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum- Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack (for short, the 'Commissioner').2. Claimant-respondent No. 1 is the widow of late Dhruba Charan Dehury and claimant respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was employed as a Driver in Truck bearing number OR-05-3915 belonging to respondent No. 4. The said truck was going from Cuttack to Burla being loaded with Amul Spray. On the way the vehicle was way-laid by culprits and the consignment of the Amul Spray was looted and subsequently from a nearby place, the dead body of the deceased driver was recovered. The claim application was filed by the widow and the parents of the deceased alleging that death had occurred in an accident arising out of and in course of employment.3. The owner filed written statement admitting about the employment. It w...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muna Khan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ833Ori; 2000(I)OLR422
P.K. Misra, J.1. The Insurer has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. Claimant-respondent No. 1 was working as Helper in Truck bearing registration number OR-05-A-3608 belonging to present respondent No. 2. While the aforesaid vehicle was coming from U.P. towards Bhubaneswar. it met with an accident near Beheraguda in East Singhbhum, Bihar. The claimant-respondent sustained injuries in his left hand. Subsequently after filing of the claim application, the hand of the claimant had to be amputated. Claim application was filed before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Cuttack, (in short, the 'Commissioner') as the claimant is a resident of Cuttack.3. In spite of notice, the Insurance Company did not take any steps. However, the owner while admitting abut the employment and the accidental injury claimed that the amount of compensation should be paid by the Insurance Company.4. The Commissioner found that the claimant-respondent was a workman and had...
Rasmi Ranjan Srichandan and ors. Vs. Principal-cum-secretary, Sri Jaya ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: 89(2000)CLT261; 2000(I)OLR255
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioners were appointed as Store-Keepers in the various Science Departments of Sri Jayadev College of Education and Technology. Subsequently, vide separate orders passed on 9.7.1998, they were relieved from their duties. The legality of such orders as per Annexure-1 series has been called in question in this common writ application. It is contended by the petitioners that without holding any enquiry and without taking prior approval of the D.P.I. as contemplated in Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act, the petitioners have been relieved from their duties. It appears that the matter had been brought to the notice of the Director of Higher Education and the Deputy Director had written a letter to the Principal indicating that the petitioners had been relieved from their duties without holding any enquiry.2. It appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the College that the three petitioners had been appointed at a time when the Special Officer was i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »