Court : Orissa
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT817
B. Panigrahi, J. 1. The appellant Gobardhan Majhi, who was one of the accused persons in S. C. No. 253/92 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 37/93 registered under Section 302/34, IPC has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence whereby he was directed to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed murder of one Govinda Majhi.2. From the narration of facts by the prosecution, it appears that accused is the brother-in-law of deceased Govinda Majhi. On 18.6.92 at about 4.00 P.M. deceased Govinda Majhi under the influence of liquor went to the house of the appellant and other accused persons and used abrasive language at them. The appellant and other two accused persons (who are since dead) being in a sudden impulse due to such chastise by the deceased chased the deceased who was running ahead of them. The deceased Govinda in order to save his life entered inside the house of one Jadu Majhi. Jadu Majhi closed his door and on his persuation the accused persons left that plac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT524
A.S. Naidu, J. 1. What is sought to be challenged in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a group of villagers of different villages situated on the bank of river 'Luna', in the shape of a public interest litigation, is the notification (Istahar) issued by the Tahsildar, Puri expressing the intention to lease out water source of Ac. 363.994 decimals as fishery shairat of river 'Luna' in the Mouzas extending from village Jamiligoda to village Dethiapada. It is asserted in the writ petition that in the years past, only 14.49 acres of water source of river 'Luna' was being leased out as fishery shairat by public auction, but then the persons in whose favour the lease was being settled, used to catch fish in the entire river, thereby polluting the water of the river and causing immense environmental problems. The lessees, in order to attract fish, used to throw dead animals and corpses into the river, thereby polluting the water source and causing heal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR1208]; (2002)IIILLJ203Ori; 2002(I)OLR525
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The petitioners are officers in the State Bank of India, described by the learned counsel for petitioners as a statutory bank. They are governed by the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. They are liable to be transferred from one branch to another or from one station to another Rule 47 of the State of Bank of India Officers Service Rules (in short, the 'Service Rules') provides for the same. It reads:'47. Every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or to any place or deputation to any other organisation, in India.'The Circle Transfer Policy marked Annexure-5 provides for minimum and maximum period of retention of an officer in some branch/office. In Branches, as far as officers like the petitioners are concerned, the minimum period is two years and the maximum period is three years. The petitioners have completed the maximum period of three years in the Branches/Offices in which they had been working. The Bank introduc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT822; 2002(II)OLR139
B. Panigrahi, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant Jakaka Dama is directed against the order dated 13.5.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1992. By the said order, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') for committing the murder of Jakaka Lachi and for voluntarily causing hurt of Jakaka Arja. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323, IPC.2. The skeletal picture of the prosecution story as stated in the trial court's judgment is as follows :The appellant and one Jakaka Jiramajhi had gone to the house of the deceased on 25.1.1992 at about 8 P.M. and assaulted Jakaka Arja by means of a yoke. It is stated that when the deceased Jakaka Lachi raised severe protest and asked the appellant and his associate not to assault her husband, bot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 94(2002)CLT251; 2002(I)OLR634
Pradipta Ray, J. 1. Plaintiff-Respondent filed Money suit No. 4 of 1983 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gunupur, claiming a decree for Rs. 4,100/- or in the alternative for Quintal 34.20 K.Gs. of paddy, pendente lite interest and future interest till payment or recovery. By judgment and decree dated February 16, 1985, Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff-respondent preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 1986 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Jeypore (Previous M.A. No. 4/85 of the Court of the District Judge, Jeypore). By judgment and decree dated November 26, 1986 the Addl. District Judge allowed the said appeal and decreed the suit. Being aggrieved the present appellants, who were defendants in the suit, have filed this second appeal.2, The case of the plaintiff-respondents as pleaded in the plaint, inter alia, is :The present appellants jointly borrowed 55 putties of paddy from the respondent on June 11, 1980 by executing a grain-bond wherein they jointly pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2003Ori30; 93(2002)CLT454; 2002(I)OLR548
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Orissa State Financial Corporation being aggrieved by an order dated 12.12.1997 passed by the District Judge, Cuttack in a proceeding initiated under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has preferred this Miscellaneous Appeal invoking jurisdiction under Section 32(9) of the Act.2. The Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to 'OSFC') filed an application under Section 31 of the Act for a direction to sell the properties attached by it for realisation of its outstanding dues towards loan and also to permit it to enforce the personal liability of the guarantor for realisation of the amount due along with agreed interest till realisation. The District Judge by the impugned order dismissed the Misc. Case against the loanee (opposite party-respondent No. 1) observing that the loanee cannot be held personally liable for payment of the outstanding dues, but the hypothecated property can be attac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT441; 2002(I)OLR568
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This is an application under Order 41, Rule 21 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying for re-hearing of Misc. Appeal No. 57 of 1992, disposed of on March 6, 1997 by this Court.2. Misc. Appeal No. 57 of 1992 was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Opp. party No. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the award passed by the Second M.A.C.T., Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 598 of 1988 awarding a sum at Rs. 80,000/- as compensation to claimant-respondents 1, 2 and 3, (petitioners). This Court by a well-discussed judgment dated March 6, 1997 came to the conclusion that at the relevant time when the accident took place, the vehicle was not insured and that the insurance which was only for two months, had expired with effect from January 6.1988. Admittedly, the accident took place on May 5, 1988. On the basis of such conclusion, this Court directed, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal to be paid by the owner and not by the Insurance Company....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT794; [2002(94)FLR312]; 2002(I)OLR667
R.K. Patra, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks quashing of order dated 11.8.1999 (Annexure-6) made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No. 165 of 1993 dismissing his application on the ground of delay.2. The petitioner while working as a clerk in Choudhury Bazar Post Office, Cuttack faced departmental proceeding for alleged unauthorised absence. The disciplinary authority-Senior Superintendent of Post Offices by order dated 7.10.1980 found him guilty of the charge and removed him from service with effect from 21.4.1979 (alleged date of desertion from duty). He filed an appeal before the Post Master General against the order of removal and the appellate authority by order dated 6.8.1983 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Minister concerned of the Central Government in the year 1989. He waited for some time for decision, but as there was no response, he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT820
B. Panigrahi, J.1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the J.M.F.C., Purushottampur in 2{a) CC No. 244/1031 of 1986/92 on 2.2.95 and confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl. Appeal No. 36/77 of 1995 (GDC) on 3.1.96 convicting the petitioner under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of one month.2. The case of the prosecution as narrated in the order of the trial Court is as follows :That on 13.9.86 around 7.30 A.M. the S.I. of Excise, Striking Force, Chatrapur (P.W. 4) searched the house of the petitioner in presence of independent witnesses, recovered and seized a plastic jerrycan containing 20 litres of I.D. liquor. On test by blue litmus paper and hydrometer and from the experience gathered by P.W. 4 he found the contents of the jerrycan to be I.D. liquor.3. Petitioner's plea was one of the complete denial.4. Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR482
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. The petitioner was the licensee of Koraput No. II IMFL 'OFF' shop for the excise year 2000-01. The petitioner got the renewal of his licence for the excise year 2001-02 commencing on 1.4.2001 and ending on 31.3.2002.2. The petitioner, in terms of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') had the obligation under Rule 6-A of the said Rules, to guarantee the sale of and to lift the minimum guaranteed quantity of foreign liquor as fixed by the Excise Commissioner. A minimum guaranteed quantity per month was fixed for the shop. For the months of April, May and June, 2001, the petitioner did not lift the minimum guaranteed quantity. He did not apply to the Collector for permission to lift the quota during the succeeding month in terms of Rule 6-A(2). He also did not lift it. In that .situation, the Superintendent of Excise, Koraput issued a notice to the petitioner dated 9.11.2001 calling upon the...
Tag this Judgment!