Orissa Court October 2001 Judgments
Ray Trading Company Vs. Indian Red Cross Society and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT191
B. P. Das, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the action of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in accepting the quotation offered by opposite party No. 3 for supply of mosquito nets.2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm, which deals in mosquito nets and cloths etc. and is also a general order supplier. It is claimed that the petitioner has a good name in the trade circle in the State and is one of the most reliable and dependable dealer and a genuine supplier in the field. Considering the above fact, as per the petitioner, O.P. No. 1 Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State Branch Committee, on 3.8.2001 called for quotations from the petitioner for supply of mosquito nets vide Annexure-2 in order to provide the same along with other relief materials to the people of Orissa affected by the high and devastating flood of 2001 under the Orissa Disaster Mitigation Programme. Pursuant to Annexure-2, the petitioner submitted its quo...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Labla Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ484Ori; 2001(II)OLR718
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner assails the order/award of the Labour Court, Jeypore. Koraput answering the reference made to it by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act against the petitioner-workman. 2. The short fact of the petitioner's case was that he was working with Orissa Forest Development Corporation as a mate, which was subsequently redesignated as Field Assistant in its Rayagada Division running under the control of opposite party No. 3. He was appointed on November 10, 1989 and continued upto June 15, 1991, when his services were terminated without assigning any reason, for which an Industrial Dispute was raised before opposite parties 2 and 3. The Conciliation Proceeding having failed, on the basis of the report the State Government referred the dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the following terms: (i) Whether the termination of the services of Sri Gangadhar Labala b...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT346
A.S. Naidu. J. 1. The petitioner, a ministerial employee of an Aided Educational Institution, assails the order dated December 22, 1998, passed by the Government of Orissa, Department of Higher Education (Annexure-7) refusing to accord approval to the petitioner's promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk and Head Clerk with effect from June 1, 1980 and June 1, 1986 respectively, only on the ground that he has not passed Accounts Examination. 2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as follows : Subhadra Mahatab Mahavidyalaya, situated at Asureswar in the District of Cuttack, is an aided educational institution as defined under the Orissa Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The said institution came into the grant-in-aid fold with effect from June 1, 1986. After facing rigorous recruitment test, the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the aforesaid institution on December 4, 1979. The Governing Body of the College promoted the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Murali Mohakur @ Mendidhar and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT357; 2002(I)OLR326
P.K. Mohanty, J. 1. The petitioners call in question the order of cognizance dated 16.3.1998, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Biramaharajpur in 1 C.C. No. 5 of 1996 in this petition under Section 482, Code of CriminalProcedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and prayer is made for quashing of such order of cognizance. 2. The fact in brief is that opp. party No. 2 lodged a complaint in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Biramaharajpur as against the petitioners on allegation of having committed offences, punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 354, 427, 379, 447, 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.'). The learned Magistrate, by order dated 7.8.1996, recorded the initial statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code and since it was found that the offences alleged are triable exclusively by the Court of Session, as required under law, he directed the complainant to produce all the witnesses named in the petition on 26.8.1996, for recording their statement...
Tag this Judgment!Mahinder Singh Vs. Pratima Kumari Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT80; 2001(II)OLR695
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The present writ application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by a third party intervenor in an Execution Case challenging the order/judgment dated September 21, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Cuttack, in Civil Revision No. 88 of 1999. The said civil revision arose out of an order dated October 13, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Cuttack in Execution Case No. 11 of 1996.2. Bereft of all the unnecessary details, the brief facts giving rise to the case are as follows :One Mahavir Prasad Halan, claiming to be the landlord filed HRC Case No. 19 of 1970 under Section 7 of the Orissa HouseRent Control Act, 1967 in the Court of the House Rent Controller, Cuttack against the tenant one Laxman Patnaik praying for his eviction from the premises appertaining to Holding No. 539 situated in Ward No. 25 of Cuttack Municipality.The learned House Rent Controller by his judgment dated May ...
Tag this Judgment!Pranabandhu Pal Alias Pagal Vs. Minati Moharana
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1073
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Opposite Party filed an application claiming for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') and that was registered as Criminal Proceeding No. 368 of 1995 in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. She claimed maintenance from the petitioner on the grounds that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner and she was ill-treated and driven out by the petitioner. Opposite Party also claimed that she had no means to sustain her livelihood whereas the petitioner being a practising Advocate is capable of providing maintenance to her. While not disputing to the inter se relationship, petitioner alleged ill-treatment and cruelty on him by the opposite party, challenged her fidelity and also her voluntary disassociation from his society. Petitioner also contended that opposite party being an educated woman is capable of earning her bread and that she is earning by doing tuition and tailoring work. Accordingly he...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rama Rao and ors. Vs. Raghunath Patnaik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(II)OLR657
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Chapter- VII, Rule 2(a) of the Orissa High Court Rules is at the instance of the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated August 7, 1995 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 27 of 1988, confirming the judgment and decree dated December 19, 1987 passed by the then Subordinate Judge, Chhatrapur in Title Suit No. 25 of 1984.2. The suit out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises was one for Specific Performance of Contract, filed by the present respondent No. 1 as the sole plaintiff. Bereft of all the unnecessary details, the short facts of the case as would be apparent from the averments made in the plaint are as follows :On November 7, 1983, A. Gopal Rao (Defendant No. 1) executed an unregistered plain paper agreement (Ext.l) in respect of the suit scheduled house site agreeing to alienate the same in favour of plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/-. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Gandharba Tandi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT199
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. The appellant having been convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code for commission of murder of Suta Tandi and further being convicted under Section 323 of the Penal Code for injuring Maheswar Tandi (P.W. 4) and having been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi has preferred this appeal.2. Prosecution case in short is that P.W. 4, Maheswar Tandi had got four sons namely, Gandharba Tandi (appellant), Suta Tandi (Deceased), Trilochan Tandi (P.W. 3) and Trinath Tandi. Trinath Tandi was residing at Raipur leaving his wife and only child in the village. Wife of the appellant who was acquitted by the Trial Court and wife of Trinath Tandi are sisters. On 18.7.1993 some unknown person went inside the room of wife of Trinath Tandi in absence of Trinath and having seen it Trilochan Tandi (P.W. 3) and the deceased Suta Tandi objected to such conduct of wife of Trinath. Next day morning wife of Trinath Tandi (Raj Kumari) went to her par...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Sahu and ors. Vs. Sahadev Meher and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT294; 2002(I)OLR129
B. Panigrahi, J.1. This is directed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Sonepur in M.J.C.No. 22 of 2001 arising out of an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 as well as under , Order 40, Rule 1, read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, whereby and whereunder, the appellants were restrained from entering into the suit land till disposal of the suit.2. The factual matrix leading to this appeal is as follows: Originally the suit property appertaining to 4th.Settlement Khata Nos. 55 and 46 of mouza Regudipali belonged to one Sitanshu Sekhara Singhdeo who was in possession of the same till he transferred the property in favour of Rameswar Lal Singhdeo and Satarupa Devi by means of sale deed and gift deed respectively. Thereafter Rameswarlal Singhdeo and Satarupa Devi possessed the suit land in their own right by virtue of the deed of conveyance/deed of gift. Rameswarlal Singhdeo and Satarupa appointed Daulat Sahu, present respondent No. 1 as their ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(I)OLR132
B. Panigrahi, J.1. The prosecution story shortly stated is that on 15th March, 1988, at 5.30 P.M. when P.W.2, Subudhi Pradhan was in his house, Sukadev Digal (P.W.7) of his village came running and narrated that he and the deceased Sunasira Pradhan had been to Rajanbadi Padar to take Salap juice. After taking Salap juice when they were returning to village, on the way at Gotadipadar, Trikola Pradhan (not an accused) and the appellants Mathu Digal and Ramesh Pradhan came in a body and attacked the deceased Sunasira Pradhan by laying him down on the ground and dealt fist and kick blows on his chest, belly and head as a result of.which he instantaneously died. When P.W.7 Sukadev Digal questioned as to the appellants' high-handed action, they assaulted P.W.7 as a reason whereof he went away from the spot out of fear. P.W.2 on being informed about the incident by P.W.7 immediately intimated to the other villagers, namely Debendra Pradhan, Bala Krushna Pradhan and Asiban Pradhan. He went to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »