Orissa Court July 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.
Ghanashyam Meher Vs. Bhima Ganda Alias Kumbhar (Having Died),
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR275
P.K. Misra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the orders passed by the authorities directing eviction of the present petitioner in exercise of power Under Section 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act.2. It appears that Revenue Misc. Case No. 11/91 was started suo motu by the Sub-Collector-cum-Revenue Officer, Sonepur, Under Section 23-A, of the Orissa Land Reforms Act on the basis of the report of the Welfare Extension Officer. Tarbha, wherein it was stated that the lands belongs to Bhima Ganda, original opposite party No. 1 in the present writ application (since substituted by the legal representatives). It was reported that the present petitioner had remained in possession from 1985. The present petitioner after receipt of notice filed objection stating that he is in possession of the disputed land since 1943 and as such the proceeding Under Section 23-A is not maintainable.3. It is not disputed that the land was initially Chaukidar Jagir land of opposite party No. 1 and ...
Union of India (Uoi) Represented by General Manager, S.E. Railway Vs. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1586; 2000(II)OLR433
P.K. Misra, J.1. The Union of India has filed these appeals. Heard Mr. B. Pal for the appellant and Mr. S. B. Das for the respondent. Though all the matters were listed for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, in consent of learned counsels appearing for both parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal.2. The respondent had filed various applications claiming compensation alleging short delivery. The present appellant filed written statement denying the allegations made. The Railway Claims Tribunal has passed a common order directing payment of compensation in the various cases.3. Though several contentions have been raised in course of hearing of the appeals, it is not necessay to notice all such contentions as in my opinion, the appeals are to be allowed and the matters remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh disposal.4. Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short, the 'Act') which lays down the procedure and powers of the Claims...
State of Orissa Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT364
R.K. Patra, J. 1. The Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal') has referred the following question of law by drawing up a statement of case for determination by this Court. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal is justified to hold that the assessee is not liable to pay tax on the sale of furnace oil to the purchasing dealer merely on the ground that he gave a declaration in Form-I although the said furnace oil was not utilised by him as a raw material ?' 2. The facts of the case are that the assessment for the period 1979-80 was completed under Section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, (1947) (for short 'the Act') by allowing deduction of a sum of Rs. 4,39,599.02 sold to M/s Orissa Textiles and Steel Ltd. against furnishing declaration form in Form-I. But subsequently, the assessment was re-opened under Section 12(8) of the Act on the ground that the purchasing dealer who was a manufacture of hardware, iron and steel goods could n...
Steel Authority of India Vs. Rana Constructions and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 90(2000)CLT670; 2000(II)OLR278
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Steel Authority of India has filed the revision challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur, in Misc. Case No. 153 of 1997. The aforesaid Misc. Case was registered on the basis of an application filed by present opposite party No. 1 purporting to be Under Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. It appears that prior to filing of the said application, present opposite party No. 1 had filed Title Suit No. 95 of 1996 wherein objection was raised on behalf of the present petitioner regarding maintainability of the suit on the footing that an arbitration clause was there to settle the dispute between the parties and on the basis of such stand taken by the present petitioner, the suit was dismissed obviously on the assumption, that it is open to the parties to pursue their remedy relating to arbitration as contemplated in Clause 75 of the Contract. The relevant portion of Clause 75 of the Contract is extracted hereunder :'75(1) If...
Phani Bhusan Kanungo Vs. Paradeep Phosphates Limited and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR400
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. This application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the 'Act'). There is no dispute that the Contract contains an arbitration clause whereunder each party is to nominate its own Arbitrator and the two Arbitrators so nominated are to nominate a third Arbitrator.2. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has contended that it cannot be said that any dispute has arisen as the petitioner before approaching this forum had not given the bills/vouchers for ascertaining the amount payable. In view of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act, the question as to whether there is any dispute or not can also be decided by the Arbitrator. In such view of the matter, it is not necessary for me to consider this aspect as all questions including the question as to whether there exists any dispute or not can be determined by the arbitral tribunal.3. The learned counsel...
Jitu Alias Biswajit Das and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR639
C.R. Pal, J.1. In this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners challenge the legality of the order dated 19.4.1999 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in S.T.Case No. 27/ 502 of 1996 debarring the petitioners to examine the defence witnesses as per the list submitted by them on 15.4.1999 and directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 500/- towards the expenses of a witness and Rs. 150/-towards the cost of special messenger.2. The petitioners are facing their trial in Sessions Trial No. 27/ 502 of 1996 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. After the prosecution evidence was closed and as the petitioners were not acquitted under Section 232, Cr.P.C. they were asked to enter into their defence. At that stage the petitioners filing a list of witnesses whom they wanted to examine in their defence made a prayer to compel the attendance of those witnesses. On 19.4.1999 they filed another petition to summon one Prafulla Kumar Parida as ...
Bijaya Kumar Khuntia Alias Biji Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR196
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. In this application under Section 482. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, petitioner prays to quash the order of cognizance dated 15.1.2000 in T.R.No. 4 of 2000 pending in the Court of Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Puri. The aforesaid order of congnizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 341, 326, 307 read with Sections 34, I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that on 19.9.1999 at about 12.30 P.M. petitioner with the co-acoused persons removed a goat from the informantios premises, his sons protested and when terrorised by the accused, out of fear went to the police station to report the matter. At about 1 P.M. petitioner with the co-accused Babaji Barik Demanded the whereabouts of the younger son of the informant and when the informant intimated about the fact that they had gone to l...
Jogindra Bhoi Alias Ganda and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR294
P.K. Misra, J.1. This writ application at the instance of some of the affected persons whose lands became submerged because of the Minor Irrigation Project at Bhaludarho under Patnagarh Police Station of Bolangir district only reflects the callous attitude of the authorities in dealing with the citizens that too of a backward district like Bolangir. There is no dispute that a considerable extent of land belonging to the petitioners became submerged because of the construction of Minor Irrigation Project at Bhaludarho. It appears that though fifty years have elapsed in the meantime, compensation is not being paid to the petitioners who are running from pillar to post. From the materials on record, it appears that at some stage suggestion had been given for settling some lands with the petitioners in lieu of the lands affected because of the irrigation project and even though the Revenue Divisional Commissioner had recommended for such settlement, nothing has happened thereafter and the ...
Nityananda Ram and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR191
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to issue notice to opposite parties 3 and 4 However, it is made clear that if opposite parties 3 and 4 feel aggrieved by the present order, they can seek for recalling/modifying the present order.2. The common grievance of the petitioners is that notice under Section 254 of the Orissa Municipal Act was issued calling upon the petitioners to remove the encroachment from the road-side land near Khaprakhai Bus-Stand on Jajpur-Keonjhar Road. It has been indicated in the notice that because of the encroachment lot of inconveniences are being caused to the general public and in the movement of vehicles. The petitioners were called upon to remove the encroachment within a period of seven days failing which it was indicated that the encroachment would be removed by the authority.3. Learned counse...
Gokulananda Panda Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR210
Pradipta Ray, J. 1. The post of junior Clerk in Gangadhar Prasad High School, Balasore (hereinafter referred to as 'School') fell vacant on May 5, 1993 due to the death of the incumbent. The Managing Committee of the School by its Resolution No. 6 dated August 17, 1993 decided to fill up the said vacant post and authorised the Headmaster to call for the names from the Employment Exchange. On the basis of the request of the Headmaster, the Employment Exchange sponsored names of 40 candidates. On December 31,1993 the Managing Committee constituted a sub-committee for conducting the selection test. On February 25, 1994 the Managing Committee decided hold written test on April 2, 1994 and viva voce on April 12,1994. In the written test held on April 2, 1994 29 candidates including the present petitioner and opp.party No. 6 appeared. In the written test the present petitioner occupied first position. In the viva voce held on April 12, 1994, 10 selected candidates including the present petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »