Orissa Court September 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.
Krushna Das and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(I)OLR288
P.K. Misra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order passed by Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement Orissa, Cuttack (in short the 'Commissioner') in R.P. Case No. 3613/97 wherein the Commissioner has directed to delete the names of Bata Das and Arakhita Das, the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners from the Record-of-Rights. It appears that while preparing the Record-of- Rights possession of Bata Das and Arakhita Das was noted. The present opposite party No. 2 filed revision case for deletion of the names on the ground that possession of a person without any right should not be noted in the Record-of-Rights. The aforesaid contention having been accepted by the Commissioner on the basis of instruction issued by the Board of Revenue, Orissa, and a Division Bench decision of this Court in O.J.C. No. 4478 of 1989 (Sulie Bewa v. Bharat Pradhan and Anr.) disposed on 22.10.1992, the present writ application has been filed by the legal representatives of Bat...
Rabinarayan Nanda Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR539
L. Mahapatra, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application has sought for a direction to the opposite parties not to disturb the petitioner's status and right in the Ranpurgarh Service Cooperative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Society') by quashing Annexures 2 and 4.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the President of the Managing Committee of the Society which is a primary society. Having been elected, the committee resumed office in September, 1997. The opposite party No. 2 is the Secretary of the Society. The petitioner applied for a loan for agricultural operation of high yielding variety of paddy during the agricultural year 1999-2000. The Society is affiliated to Khurda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The primary society sanctioned Rs. 28,000/- on 31.3.1999 fixing the repayment dates to 15.6.1999, 28.2.2000 and 15.6.2000. Rs. 9,200/-was disbursed to the petitioner on 31.3.1999, Rs. 10,000/- on-1.6.1999, Rs.1,100/- on 29.9.1999 and the balance Rs. 7,700/- on ...
K.S. Vishwanath and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1637; 2000(II)OLR587
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. In this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. petitioners who are the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 3036 of 1992 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar have prayed to quash the proceeding i.e., the said G.R. case. 2. At the out set it may be mentioned that the informant having been added as opposite party No. 2 several steps were taken for effective service of notice on her and when that failed even publication of the notice was made in the daily newspaper and in spite of that she did not appear. Learned Standing Counsel, however, addressed the Court on behalf of the State of Orissa and opposed to the aforesaid prayer of the petitioners. 3. According to the allegation, the undisputed relationship between the petitioners and the opposite party is that petitioner No. 3 is the husband of opposite party No. 2 and petitioners 1 and 2 are her parents-in-law. Another relevant factor may be noted here that this Court wanted to know about the consequence of Annexu...
Chintamani Bhue and ors. Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR521
P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. S.K. Misra for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties 1 to 3, Mr. H.S. Misra for opposite party No. 5 and Mr. A.R. Dash for opposite party No. 4.2. The dispute in the writ application relates to a ferry ghat which adjoins Chadeipank Grama Panchayat on one side and Binika Notified Area Council on the other side of river Mahanadi. It is apparent from Annexure-1 that it was decided to put the ferry ghat to auction for the year 2000-2001 in accordance with Rule 87 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, 1968 (in short, the 'Rules')- It may be noticed that for previous two to three years also the ferry ghat had been put to auction. As per Annexure-1, the auction was scheduled to be held by the Block Development Officer (in short, the 'B.D.O.'), the prescribed authority to hold the auction as contemplated in Rule 87 (d) of the Rules, on 28.3.2000 at 11.00 A.M. and accordingly the notice dated 10.3.2000 (Annexure-2) was duly issued...
Balaji Store Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR506; [2000]121STC171(Orissa)
R.K. Patra, J. 1. Is it imperative for the Commissioner to record his reasons before invoking the suo motu revisional power under Section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') This is the moot point that arises for consideration in this writ petition filed by the dealer.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm which carries on business in purchase and sale of grocery items on wholesale basis at Charampa Bazar, Bhadrak. It has been registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Act in Bhadrak Circle, Bhadrak, with registration No. BD-803. The Sales Tax Officer, Bhadrak (opposite party No. 1) in regular course for the year 1997-98 made assessment order under Section 12(4) of the Act on May 20, 1998 at annexure 2. On the basis of a fraud report submitted by the Inspector of Sales Tax, Keonjhar the order of assessment dated May 20, 1998 at annexure 2...
Sri Sri Jagannath Dev and Others Vs. Raghunath Panda and Others
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 91(2001)CLT296
P.K. Misra, J.1. Some of the defendants have filed this revision.2. The suit had been filed for the following reliefs :--'16. The plaintiffs therefore pray that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree in their favour and against the defendants;(a) Declaring that they are the hereditary Archakas andSebayats of the deities defendants No. 1 (a) & 1 (b)and are thus entitled to possess the properties described in Schedule 'A' Schedule 'B' and item No. 6 in Schedule 'C' for due discharge of Seva Puja etc., including performance of Jani Jatra etc. attached to the said deities as Hereditary Archakas and Hereditary Sebayats;(b) Declaring that the plaintiffs are the occupancy tenants of suit A and B Schedule lands;(c) granting a permanent injunction against defendants 3 to 26, 28 to 30 from in any way interfering with the possession of these plaintiffs of the lands described suit Schedules A and item 6 in Schedule C or in the collection of Rajbhag from Schedule B lands from the defenda...
Baisnab Pradhan and ors. Vs. Guru Charan Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR625
P.C.Naik, J.1. Aggrieved with the dismissal of their appeal in which a challenge was made to the order of the trial Court ordering demolition of part of the building that was constructed in breach of the injunction order, defendants (petitioners herein) have preferred this revision.2. The facts of the case are as follows :Opposite party herein as the plaintiff has filed a suit (T.S.No. 73/85) before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jajpur for partition in which the petitioners herein are defendants. One Misc. Case under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code (in short, 'the Code') was filed for restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the suit land appertaining to plot No. 1748 measuring Ac.0.30 decimals and plot No. 1878 measuring Ac.0.24 decimals under Khata No. 327 of village Nahana and for maintaining status quo. During pendency of the suit, an ad interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from making any construction over the suit land o...
Dutta Traders Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Vigilance and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR453; [2000]120STC294(Orissa)
R.K. Patra, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner seeks quashing of realisation of tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 86,912 purported to have been done by the Sales Tax Officer, Vigilance, Under Section 16-D of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 at annexure 1 as well as the order of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, Cut tack, dated January 1, 2000 in Revision Case No. 1070/1999-2000 at annexure 2.2. Case of the petitioner is that it is a wholeseller of biscuits of different brands and is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On October 14, 1999 goods were being unloaded from vehicle number WB-24-A-0112. The Investigating Officers of Vigilance Wing, Balasore Division, Circle staff and officers of the Mobile Unit found certain irregularity and the Sales Tax Officer, Vigilance. Balasore Division, realised a sum of Rs. 32,592 as tax and Rs. 54,320 as penally in purported exercise of powers Under S...
Swami Adhokshajananda Tirthji Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR666
Pradipta Ray, J.1. By this writ petition Sri Swami Adhokshajananda Tirthji, the writ petitioner herein, has assailed an order dated July 15, 2000 passed by the Sub-divisional Executive Magistrate, Puri under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') directing the police to prohibit the presence and movement of the writ petitioner within local limits of jurisdiction of the Court of the Sub-divisional Executive Magistrate, Puri and the conditions contained in the subsequent order dated July 17, 2000 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri granting bail to the petitioner in G.R.Case No. 760 of 2000.2. The relevant facts as stated in the writ petition in short are :The petitioner claims that he is the son of Guruswami Niranjan Dev Tirth, who was the Sankaracharya of Puri Govardhan Pitha before the present recognised Sankaracharya Swami Nischalananda Saraswati. The petitioner also claims that he has the legitimate right to become Sankaracharya of Govard...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›