Orissa Court March 2002 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.
State of Orissa Through Collector and Two ors. Vs. Trilochan Senapati ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(I)OLR502
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the substantial question of law and, the relevant question as per Ground No. 3 reads as hereunder :'Whether the appellate Judge is justified in law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by accepting additional evidence against the appellant without giving them an opportunity of adducing rebuttal evidence ?'2. Plaintiff is Respondent No. 1. He filed Title Suit No. 124 of 1979 in the Court of Munsif, First Court, Cuttack, inter alia, praying for confirmation of possession, alternatively for recovery of possession and for permanent, injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 6. Plaintiff claimed the said land for himself as well as for the defendant Nos. 5 and 6. The disputed land is described in the Schedule 'A' of the plaint, which reads as hereunder:Schedule 'A'District - Cuttack Mouza - Samapurpoda, Samil-Rajabagicha, Khata No. 64. C.S. Plot No. ...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vs. Managing Director, Cesco and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ori137
B. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this writ petition a challenge has been made against the notice of disconnection No. 2118 dt/- 12-9-2001 issued by the opp. party No. 4 under Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 5,85,664/- by 25-9-2001.2. The petitioner is a Government of India enterprise undertaking in the business of manufacture, refining and distribution of petrol and other petroleum products throughout India and as such decided to set up an Oil Terminal at Paradeep in the year 1994 to cater the demand of its customers of this region.3. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the prosposed action of the opp. party No. 4 whereby time till 26-9-2001 has been given to disconnect the power supply on the ground of non-payment of the bill. But on the other hand it is alleged by the petitioner that Rs. 43,00,000/- is payable by the opp. party No. 1 to the petitioner on account of excess calculation of electricity bill being charged against...
Jagannath Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT369
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ application, seeks t'o assail the propriety or otherwise of the temporary permits issued by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No. 4), in favour of Opp. parties 5 to 8 for extracting and/or removing 'Sand' from the river bed of 'Kuakhai' near village Pandara and Bhubanpur situated under Bhubaneswar Tahasil. The petitioner also seeks issue of a writ of mandamus directing Opp. parties 2 and 3 to conduct auction as required under Rule 22(1) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') for extracting and/or removing sand from the said river.2. Before entering into the arena of the controversy, some of the admitted facts and provisions of law are stated herein below :The petitioner, being the highest bidder in public auction, wasallowed to extract sand from 'Kuakhai river bed' at village Pandaraover Plot No. 2414 having an area of Ac. 20.40 decimals out ofAc. 102.25 decimals for a period of one...
Durjodhan Sardar Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT672
P. Ray, J. 1. The present appellant was tried for committing offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge, Keonjhar found him guilty Under Section 302, l.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved the appellant has filed the present appeal from jail. 2. The prosecution case, inter alia, is : The accused Durjodhan is distantly related to the deceased Bihari Sardar. The accused wanted to marry Binita, a daughter of the deceased and put vermilion on her forehead. The deceased objected to the same and also assaulted the accused at that time. At about 8 P.M. on May 17, 1992 the deceased was sleeping on a Khatia in the courtyard of his house. His son Rasananda was teaching his sisters Rina and Sailendri. His wife and another daughter Binita were present there. The accused stealthily entered into the courtyard with a knife and pierced it, into the left side of the body below the arm-pit of the deceased. Rasananda chased the accused. The ...
Smt. Pratima Biswal Vs. Amulay Kumar Biswal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ori125
B. Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/ order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 131 of 1995 filed under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (here-in-after referred to as the 'Act').2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows :-Undisputedly the appellant is the wife of the sole respondent whose marriage was solemnised on 7-6-1998 according to Hindu rites and customs. Immediately after marriage the parties lived peacefully for some time, but thereafter, bitter feeling arose in their conjugal life as the appellant asked the respondent to live separately from his parents. Since the respondent did not agree to the suggestion, therefore there was ill-feeling and dissension between them. The respondent in order to satisfy the appellant brought her to Cuttack for some time, but the position did not improve. Out of their wedlock a daughter was born to them who is admittedly residing with the sole responden...
Sanatan Jena and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT374
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The appellant assail the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1996, sentencing Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of Rangadhar Barik and Kunjabehari Barik respectively and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to undergo further imprisonment of six months.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as revealed from the F.I.R. (Ext. - 1) lodged by Srikanta Barik (P.W. 1) who is the son of deceased Rangadhar Barik and brother of deceased Kunjabehari Barik are as follows ;On the night of July 12/13 of 1995, Rangadhar was sleeping in the Eastern side outer verandah whereas Kunjabehari, the other deceased, was sleeping on the Northern side outer verandah of their residential house. At about 4 A.M. of July 13, 1995, the informant heard noise from the Eastern side outer verandah, rushed to the spot and found t...