Orissa Court June 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.
Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ori161
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The State Government acquired some lands belonging to different persons In mouza Chauliapalanda for construction of Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 12.500/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the valuation of the property, claims were raised for higher compensation and the Land Acquisition Collector, Jagatsinghpur, referred the claims under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act', for short) for fixation of fair amount of compensation in respect of the lands acquired belonging to several persons. These reference gave rise to 25 land acquisition cases which were tried and disposed of by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur, and compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Challenging the said award made by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur, in all the 25 cases, the present First Appeals have been filed by Paradeep Phosphates Limited.2. It appears from the reco...
Gajendranath Sahu Vs. Berhampur University and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Reported in: 90(2000)CLT483; 2000(II)OLR248
P.C. Naik, J.1. Raising a short but interesting question, the petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order (Annexure-6) whereby he has again been placed under suspension, though after revocation of an earlier suspension order he was permitted to resume duties.2. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant in the Berhampur University. On 8.7.1989, he was suspended pending drawal of departmental proceedings. Charges were framed and after due inquiry, he was found to be guilty of the charge of misappropriation. The period of suspension was treated as such and four increments were stopped with cumulative effect. It was further directed that a sum of Rs. 1,03,178/-with 6% interest thereon shall be recovered from the petitioner in 242 consecutive monthly installments. However, in terms of the order, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 9.7.1991. Appeal preferred by him before the Chancellor was rejected. Subsequently on 30.12.1991, an FIR was lod...
Bali Tellam Naidu Vs. State and Others
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 91(2001)CLT19
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Petitioner who is an accused in G. R. Case No. 35 of 1999 in the court of S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi arising out of Parlakhemundi P. S, Case No. 10/99 where the major offence alleged is under sections 302/149, I. P. C. has prayed in this application under section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceeding of the said G. R. case and to direct for an investigation of the murder of late K. Narasingha Murty (in short 'the deceased') by the Crime Branch or the Central Bureau of Investigation on the grounds that the local investigating agency being backed by pressure from the political rivals conducted a motivated investigation to rope in innocent person like the petitioner. 2. Parlakhemundi P. S. Case No. 10/99 was registered on the First Information Report lodged by the informant K. Parsuram reporting about killing of his father in the morninghours on 9-2-1999 by fifteen persons headed by the present petitioner. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that while he along with his father,...
Satish Kumar Goenka Vs. S.R.K. Mohan and Another
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 91(2001)CLT153; 2000(II)OLR330
P.K. Mohanty, J. 1. The petitioner in both the criminal revisions being common and the question of law involved in similar, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner assails the orders of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack dated 3-9-96 dismissing his applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed along with the complaints under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N. I. Act').3. The petitioner filed two complaint petitions under section 138 of the N. I. Act in the Court of the S. D. J. M. (S),Cuttack the cheques issued by the opp. party No. 1 having been dishonoured and in spite of notice, no payment having been made as against the dishonoured cheques. It is not disputed that the complaint petitions were filed beyond one month after the expiry of a period of 15 days of notice under sectio...
Prahallad Kar Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 91(2001)CLT315
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. Petitioner calls in question the criminal proceeding in G. R. Case No. 29 of 1994(V) in the court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and prays for quashing the same, the proceeding being illegal and beyond the prescribed period of limitation as prescribed under the Orissa Pension Rules.2. The short facts of the petitioner's case is that he was serving in the cadre of O. A. S.(I), Senior Branch and retired from Government service on 31-7-1997. While in service the house of the petitioner was searched by the Vigilance Squad on30-7-1994 on the strength of a search warrant issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur. In course of search, the Vigilance Squad seized all movable properties, documents, records and files along with cash. The Investigating Officer submitted the F. I. R. along with a statement showing the income, expenditure and assets of the petitioner for th...
Sukanande Catholic Church and anr. Vs. Aspati Pradhan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ori166
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants in the present appeal against a reversing judgment of the learned District Judge in suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for permanent injunction against defendants 1 and 2. The alternative prayer was for restoration of possession in case the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 11 are found to have been dis-possessed. It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit land bearing plot Nos. 616, 620, 621, 622 and 637 in Khata No. 14of Kakamaha Mouza under G. Udayagiri Tahsil consisting of 2.281 hectres which is locally called TADRIPADA' is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 11. The lands had been recorded in the name of defendant Nos. 3 to 10. The plaintiff and defendant No. 11 are sons of defendant Nos 3. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 11 are in possession and enjoy...
Ajoy Kumar Mitra Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 90(2000)CLT240; [2002(92)FLR460]; (2000)IILLJ1516Ori
P.K. Mohanty, J. 1. The petitioner who has filed this writ application in person, has prayed for the following relief:'Under these circumstances most humbly I pray that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to direct the opposite parties to show cause as to why: (1) The permanent Medical Unfit Benefit shall not be given from November 4, 1987 (Annexure-1) instead of same benefit of permanent Medical Unfit Benefit from September 7, 1996 (Annexure-9) given by the opposite party on same medical report. (2) Proper Medical Treatment for eye sight shall not be given according to the advice of Shankara Netralaya, Madras for both the cases (Annexure-6 and 21). (3) I shall not be given the promotion of E. O. (Junior Executive) grade from the year 1992 with all consequential benefits. (4) All the absenteeisms mainly due to harassments, misuse of power or not allowed to join duty, directly or indirectly, since last 17/18 years by the opposite parties shall not be treated as present mark....
Ram Prasad Mohapatra Vs. Addl. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR215
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed for quashing Annexures -1,2 and 4.2. The present petitioner had filed O.L.R. Case No. 13 of 1982 before opposite party No. 3 under Section 15 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the 'O.L.R. Act') in respect of Ac. 8.930 decimals of land in khata No. 40 of mauza Betaguda on the allegation that the land had been given on Bhag to B. Appalaswamy and R. Appa Rao, who in their turn had inducted some sub-tenants. It is further alleged that on the death of B. Appalaswamy and R. Appa Rao, the legal heirs continued as Bhag tenants. The application under Section 15 of the O.L.R. Act was filed for giving direction to the Bhag tenants to pay Rajbhag. Pursuant to the direction of the Revenue Officer, a sum of Rs. 1,394.60 was deposited. The present petitioner filed O.L.R. Appeal No. 26 of 1987 before the present opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 while setting aside the order of the Revenue Officer, remanded the matte...
Smt. Basanti Bose Vs. Civil Judge (Senior Division) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: 90(2000)CLT426; 2000(II)OLR252
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present opp. party No. 3, the husband, has filed Title Suit No. 436 of 1997 against the present petitioner for dissolution of the marriage, which is now pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore. On the basis of the application filed by the present petitioner Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the 'Act'), the trial Court passed an order directing payment of Rs. 250/- per month in addition to the amount of Rs. 350/- towards monthly maintenance as directed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore in a proceeding Under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court also directed for payment of Rs. 400/- towards accommodation and Rs. 350/- towards educational expenses of the younger son. The present petitioner, however, filed Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 1999 in the Court of the District Judge, Balasore, claiming higher amount. Earlier by order dated, 27.3.1999, it was found by the District Judge that the appeal a...
Ramesh Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Kasinath Jena and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4006; 2000(II)OLR162
L. Mohapatra, J.4822943233432. Shri D.P.Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has challenged the impugned order on the following two grounds : (a) The officer who has investigated into the case has not been empowered to investigate it under the statute.(b) The Special Court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance in respect of an offence punishable under Sections 3 of the Act.3. So far as the second point is concerned the learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the decision of the apex Court reported in (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 364: Gangula Ashok and another v. State of A.P. In paragraph 16 of the said judgment the apex Court has held that a Special Court under the Act is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence when the case is committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. In other words, a complaint or a charge-sheet cannot straightaway be laid before the Special Court under the Act. This Court has follow...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »