Orissa Court February 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.
Purnendu Kishore Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ272Ori; 2000(I)OLR325
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the opposite parties 3 and 4 to reinstate him in his former post and release all service benefits, and for a direction to implement the order of the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa, which has been upheld by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.2. The case of the petitioner is that, Buxi Jagabandhu English Medium School was established in the year 1973-74 and is a recognised institution. In response to an advertisement dated June 4, 1984 published in daily The Samaja, the petitioner along with others applied for the post of Librarian in the said school. The petitioner was selected by a selection board constituted by opposite party No. 3 and on recommendation of the selection board he was appointed as Librarian vide office order No. 106 dated August 14, 1984 in me scale of pay of Rs. 370-650/-with dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance. He joined in the post on August 16, 1984. Subsequently the ...
State of Orissa Vs. Dara Singh Alias Rabindra Kumar Pal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(I)OLR320
C.R. Pal, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. wherein the State has challenged the order passed by the learned SDJM, Karanjia on 1.2.2000 in G.R.Case No. 282 of 1999 corresponding to Thakurmunda P.S.Case No. 33 of 1999 refusing the prayer of the petitioner to remand the accused-opposite party to police custody for the purpose of further investigation.2. The facts giving rise to the petition, may be stated in brief as follows : That on the information of one Makunda Naik lodged on 28.8.1999, Thakurmunda P.S. Case No. 33 of 1999 was registered for the offences Under Sections 307, 435 read with Section 34, IPC against the present opposite party and 38 others and investigation was taken up. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet for the offences Under Sections 396, 435, 212, IPC against all the accused persons showing the opposite party namely Dara Singh alias Rabindra Kumar Pal as an absconder. On receiving the charge-sheet the learned SDJM took cognizance of th...
Banchhanidhi Samal Vs. Arjuna Rout and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 90(2000)CLT598; 2000CriLJ3257; 2000(I)OLR342
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. The informant in G.R. Case No. 705 of 1995 of the Court of SDJM, Bhadrak has filed this application under Sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') praying for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the opposite parties vide order in Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 391 and 493 of 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak.2. Opposite parties are eight of the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 705 of 1995 relating to an occurrence of assault and murder. They have been charge-sheeted, inter alia, for the offence Under Section 302/34, IPC and now the case is pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge for trial vide S.T. No. 40/213 of 1997.3. Petitioner argued that notwithstanding rejection of the prayer for bail of opposite parties 7 and 8, namely, Kamalakanta Mallik and Akshya Bindhani vide order dated 1.12.1995 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 391 of 1995 on the ground of existence of a prima facie case as...
Biren Kumar Sahu and anr. Vs. Binode Behari Hasti
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(I)OLR413
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioners are the accused persons in I.C.C. No. 5 of 1995 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Deogarh. Opposite party is the complainant in that case. He filed the complaint petition alleging that the accused persons, who are the officers in Power Grid Corporation in its office at Rourkela, with the consent of the opposite party installed Tower Line on the lands of the opposite party with a promise to provide appropriate compensation for the trees which were cut and also promised to provide those timbers with timber transit permit. They cut the standing trees but did not take steps to provide the timber transit permit, as a result of which, petitioners sustained a loss of Rs. 22,000/- (i.e. 20,000 towards the value of the timber and 2,000 towards the emoluments of the watch-man). It is further alleged that they did not pay the appropriate compensation of the trees and when demanded they threatened the opposite party with dire consequences and for initiating false case again...
State Bank of India Vs. Smt. Udia Karna and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(I)OLR366
P.K. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision against the order of the trial Court rejecting the applieation under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. for addition of the legal heirs of deceased defendant No. 1 as parties to the suit,2. Admittedly, at the time of filing of the suit. Defendant No. 1 was already dead. When this aspect was discovered, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC to add the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 as parties to the suit. The said petition was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the suit against dead person being a nullity, the petition cannot be allowed. The trial Court observed :'.....The law is well settled that the suit filed against the dead person is a nullity.......'However, while considering this aspect, the trial Court has failed to notice several decisions including that of the Orissa High Court to the effect that where a suit is filed against several persons out of whom one or some were dead at the ...
Pradosh Pattnaik and ors. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3277
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.2. Petitioners are the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 178 of 1995 arising out of Banpur Police Station Case No. 103/95 for the offences Under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 427, 380, 386, 337/149, IPC read with Section 9(b) of the I.E. Act pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Banpur. In that case, cognizance of the offences Under Sections 147, 148, 323, 336, 337, 427/149, IPC and Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act has been taken. Petitioners have filed this application Under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (in short, 'the Code') with the prayer to quash the order of cognizance dated 18-12-1995 on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court.3. During the course of hearing the only question that arises for consideration as to whether a non-compoundable offence can be permitted to be compounded by exercise of inherent power and notwithstanding the bar provided in Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Code.4. Lear...
Smt. Debaki Naik Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(I)OLR386
R.K. Patra, J.1. Both the cases being analogous were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. In Criminal Revision No. 445 of 1993 the petitioner Debaki Naik seeks to challenge the validity of the order dated 25.5.1993 of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sundargarh in G.R. Case No. 268 of 1992 taking cognizance of the offence punishable Under Section 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC). Criminal Misc. Case No. 1325 of 1994 has been filed Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Mitrabhanu Naik, husband of Debaki Naik, (petitioner in Crl. Revision No. 445 of 1993) challenging the self-same order of the learned Magistrate.3. FACTS :Petitioner-Debaki Naik filed an FIR before the Inspector-in-charge, Sadar P.S., Sundargarh on 6.6.1992 at 10.30 p.m. which was registered as Sundargarh P.S. Case No. 49(3) of 1992. Her allegation was that on 6.6.1992 at about 9 p.m. Rabiratna Naik (opp. party No. 2 in Crl. Revision No. 44...
Dhaneswar Sahoo and anr. Vs. the State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)21; 2000(I)OLR397
R.K. Patra, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in accepting the application filed by the Public Prosecutor Under Section 319(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') in respect of the petitioners.2. The opposite parties 2 to 20 are facing trial in the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri (vide S.T.No. 51 /85 of 1991) for charges Under Sections 148/302/307/324/149 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing death of Purna Chandra Palei and causing hurt to Chakradhar Panda, Banchha Nidhi Naik and others. In the midst of the trial after examination of ten witnesses, the Public Prosecutor filed the application Under Section 319(1) of the Code to add six more persons including the petitioners as accused. The learned trial Judge by the impugned order dated 23.12.1992 allowed the said application in respect of the petitioners and rejected...
Mahabir Rice Mill Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: 89(2000)CLT504; 2000(I)OLR692; [2000]120STC236(Orissa)
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer within the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Bolangir-II Circle, Kantabanji (hereinafter referred to as 'the STO'), opposite party No. 1, and was assessed to tax for the quarter ending June, 1985 by order dated March 25, 1986. A sum of Rs. 641.44 was found as the tax due from the dealer. The dealer having already paid Rs. 9,504 as tax, the STO found Rs. 8,863 as refundable to him. The petitioner filed a refund application on April 5, 1986 claiming refund of the said amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he approached the STO several times for refund of the amount no action was taken.2. In response to the memo dated May 29, 1990 of the S.T.O. opposite party No. 1, the petitioner filed a representation on February 4, 1991 before the said authority stating that though necessary sanction of refund had already been accorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bolangir Range, Bolangir, the matter was pendi...
Bansidhar Mohanty Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: 89(2000)CLT351; 2000(I)OLR426
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that the Regional Transport Officer, Cuttack, is not granting road permit in favour of the petitioner's vehicle despite deposit of the required tax for the said purpose. The petitioner also challenges the demand notice bearing No. 3051 dated 14.9.1998 issued by opposite party No. 3 directing the petitioner to deposit M.V. Tax and road tax along with penalty for an amount of Rs. 57,243/- for the period from October, 92 to June, 93; October 93 to June, 94; April, 95 to March. 98: and other taxes.2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the vehicle bearing registration No. OR-15-A/l 924 in an auction held by Orissa State Financial Corporation ('OSFC. for short) after the same was taken over Under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act from the previous owner Purna Chandra Kheti. While purchasing the said vehicle an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the OSFC which is the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›