Orissa Court August 2000 Judgments
Kishore Chandra Panigrahi Vs. Parikhit Panigrahi and State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR411; 2000(II)OLR612
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred by the appellant against the award dated 10.3.1993 in M.J.C.No. 47 of 1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jeypore on a reference received under-Section 30 of the Act from the Zone Officer, U.K.H.E. Project, Koraput.2. An area of A.0.45 decimals from Plot No. 339 of Khata No. 12/Ka in village Mulasore under Jeypore Police-station was acquired for the Upper Kolab Hydro Electricity Project, Koraput. Since the appellant was the recorded tenant, compensation was assessed and determined at Rs. 1199/-. Respondent appeared before the Zone Officer and claimed that the land in question having been acquired from joint family nucleus, it is the joint family property of heirs and successors of their father late Arjuna Panigrahi. He mentioned in his objection the family genealogy which undisputedly shows that late Arjuna Panigrahi died leaving behind two sons...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Ray and Another Vs. Madhabananda Mallik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: 91(2001)CLT140
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 9-3-98 passed by the Civil judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under section 47 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The case of the petitioners is that a decree was passed against them by the Calcutta High Court in Suit No. 105 of 1983 and the said decree was transmitted to the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak for execution. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the decree was passed in the suit on 5-3-1984 and the decree having been sent for execution by the Calcutta High Court on 2-8-1996, the same is clearly barred by limitation and it cannot be executed. It was also contended that the decree is not executable against the petitioners in their individual capacity as the same has been passed against M/s. R. B. Trading Company.3. An objection was filed on behalf of the opposite party stating that the suit ha...
Tag this Judgment!Jyostna Mayee Behera Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR544
L. Mahapatra, J1. The petitioner in this writ application prays for granting her the benefit of time bound advancement scale of pay as sanctioned by the Government pursuant to Government Memorandum dated 19.12.1985 on the ground that other teachers similarly placed have already been given the benefit. The case of the petitioner is that she is also entitled to the claim as the same has been extended to teachers in Hindi, Sanskrit and other vocational subjects who have completed fifteen years of service.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Teacher in Charampa Girls' High School on 23.1.1978 and the said appointment was approved on 20.3.1978. She was appointed against the post of Trained Hindi Teacher. But as she had not passed B.A. and had only completed Kobid in Hindi, she was allowed the Intermediate scale of pay. Subsequently after passing B.A., she was treated as a Hindi Trained Teachers with effect from 1.5.1989. She having completed fifteen years for service, is entitled to t...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Naik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 91(2001)CLT309
ORDER1. Heard Shri S, S. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. K. Choudhury, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.2. This is a petition under section 438, Cr. P. C. wherein the petitioner being apprehensive of arrest in connection with Complaint Case Ho. 51 of 1999 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, Bihar for the alleged offences under sections 405, 409, 420, 120B, I. P. C., under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 58A of the Companies Act, has prayed for anticipatory bail. All the offences alleged excepting the offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are non-bailable in nature. Shri Das submits that though the petitioner is in no way connected with the activities of the Company i. e., P. S. Moneycraft and Fintech Limited carrying on business within the territorial limit of Bihar which received the deposits and has issued the disputed cheques, he has been shown as accused in the complaint petition fil...
Tag this Judgment!Hiranmayee Devi Alias Hiranmayee Rath Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR430
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Award dated 6th March, 1993 in L.A.Misc Case No. 15 of 1986 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Baripada is under challenge at the instance of the claimant.2. An area of Ac. 1.04 decimals vide plot Nos. 3731/1 and 3955/1 was acquired from the possession of the claimant under declaration No. 23943 dated 11.4.1983 published in Orissa Gazette No. 636 dated 31.5.1983. That land was acquired for construction of Budhabalanga Bridge and its approach on MOR No. 5 at Baripada. Since the land situates within the Municipal area i.e. in Ward No. VIII of Baripada Muncipality, the Land Acquisition Officer/Respondent assessed and determined the market price of the said land at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per acre i.e. Rs. 450/-per decimals and along with other statutory benefits determined the total compensation at Rs. 53,820/-. Appellant received the same on protest and claimed for higher valuation at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre and that necessitated the respondent to make th...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Nandi and anr. Vs. Chandramani Tripathy and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR454
B.N. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a Civil Revision application which was filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code').2. In this case the Stamp Reporter has made a report that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of Rule 2(1) of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 which reads thus : '2(1) Subject to Article 12 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 every appeal to the High Court under Article 4 thereof read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exerd se of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Benia Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ282
P.K. Patra, J.1. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 8-8-1995 passed by Shri B.N. Das, Assistant Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Judge No. 30 of 1994 convicting him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000.00, in default tp undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.2. Prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:--On 5-8-1994 at about 2 p.m. the victim girl (P.W. 6), aged about 14 years, Was returning to her house in village Sana Chindiri under Koraput Town police station in the district of Koraput after taking bath in a nearby nalla when the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') who is her co-villager dragged her to a hillock and committed rape on her inside a dilapidated hut against her will and without her consent. It is alleged that the accused threatened P.W. 6 at the point of knife and detain...
Tag this Judgment!Mayadhar Sahoo and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR622
P.K. Misra, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present writ application are indicated below. The undisputed genealogy of the parties is as follows:Sadananda___________________________________________________________| | |Achuti Rama Shyama| | (Died issueless)| |___________________________Dayanidhi | || Khetra Yudhistira Prahallada | (w) Bhamamani| Jagmohan |_____|_________ (w) Shasimani || | (Petitioner No.2) AparmaParameswar Narayana | (Petitioner No. 3)(OP-6) (OP-7) |Mayadhar(Petitioner No. 1)During consolidation operation, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has purported to dispose of Partition Case Nos. 25, 26, 53 and 54 of 1987 on the basis of consent of the parties concerned. Subsequently, the present petitioners filed Objection Case which was dealt with by the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer found that the so-called compromise had been signed by present petitioner No. 1 only and was not binding as it had not been signed by present petitioners 2 and 3, who admitte...
Tag this Judgment!Foseco India Ltd. Vs. Navneet Kumar Dwivedi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ284; (2001)ILLJ571Ori
P.K. Patra, J.1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated June 25, 1994 passed by Shri A.C. Mohanty, Additional Sessions Judge. Rourkela in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1993, reversing the judgment dated January 28, 1993 passed by Shri R.K. Panda J.M.F.C., Panposh in ICC No. 8 of 1992 in which respondent Navneet Kumar Dwivedi had been convicted under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 (One Thousand), in default to undergo S.I. for one month and further directing the respondent under Sub-section (2) of Section 630 of the Act to vacate the house in question within two months from the date of the Judgment, failing which he was directed to undergo S.I. for two months.2. The appellant's case is as follows: Appellant FOSECO India Limited is a registered company under the Act with head-quarters at Bombay, having a branch at Rourkela. Respondent was the Branch Manager of the Rourkela Branch ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Senapati, Binodini Swain, Krushna Chandra Puhana and An ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: 91(2001)CLT75
B.N. Agrawal, C.J.1. On a reference made by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid batch of cases, two primal questions arise for consideration, namely, (i) whether non-observance of the provisions required to be observed at the time of search of a person as provided under section 50 of the Act, entitles an accused of the offences under the Act to be released on bail. Another ancillary point connected with this question is as to whether the case diary can be'looked into while disposing of the bail application on the ground of non-observance of the provisions of section 50 of the Act before submission of the charge-sheet/prosecution report and (ii) whether the provisions of section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are applicable with regard to offence punishable under section 20(b)(i) of the Act.2. The facts of the cases having bearing on the said questions are as follows :Crl. Misc. Case No. 21 of 1998 .--The prose...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »