Orissa Court May 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.
Dharanidhar Pradhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT668; 2002(I)OLR615
Pradip Mohanty, J. 1.The petitioner in this writ application challenges the order dated 12.11.1997 passed in O.A. No. 350 of 1995 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. 2. Petitioner's case in brief is that, in response to the call of opposite party No. 3, the Divisional Manager, Telecommunication, he appeared at the Literacy Test for the post of Lineman and having been selected, he was allowed to work as the 'Daily Rated Majdoor' under opposite party No. 5 for the period from 5.2.1986 to 30.4.1987. While he was working as such, without rhyme or reason, opposite party No. 6, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecommunication, by referring to the order dated 11.3.1986 of the General Manger, Telecommunication, issued a notice dated 27th May, 1986 removing him from the enrolment of Muster Roll (Annexure -1). Thereafter he approached the authorities on different occasions and was getting assurance that his case would be duly considered at appropriate time. When no respo...
Bhalu @ Logen Kumar Samal Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-2002
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT663
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner for quashing the order of detention dated 23.7.2001 passed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 detaining him in custody.2. The facts briefly are that the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed order dated 23.7.2001 under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short, 'the Act') detaining the petitioner in custody. On 24.7.2001, the District Magistrate, Ganjam furnished to the petitioner regarding the grounds of such detention and further informed him that he may make representations to the State Government, Central Government and the Advisory Board against the order of detention. The petitioner submitted representations to the State Government and the Central Government on 20.8.2001. the representations of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government by its order dated 29.8.2001 and the Central Government on 5....
Mitu @ Bhimsen Guru Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-2002
Reported in: 93(2002)CLT761
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. In this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of detention dated 18.8.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Sambalpur under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 detaining him (petitioner) in custody.2. The facts briefly are that on 18.8.2001 the impugned detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Sambalpur. On 21.8.2001, the detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner. On 21.8.2001, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Magistrate, Sambalpur against the order of detention which was sent to the State Government on 25.8.2001. On 27.8.2001, the State Government approved the order of detention and on 29.8.2001 rejected the representation of the petitioner but communicated the order of rejection to the petitioner in its letter dated 9.10.2001. By a communication dated 17.10.2001, the Central Government also rejected the representation dated 27.9.2...
Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR798]; (2002)IIILLJ551Ori; 2002(II)OLR40
R.K. Patra, J.1. In this writ petition, the management seeks quashing of the order dated November 16, 2001 (Annexure-2) of the Labour Commissioner, Orissa, rejecting its application in which it sought permission to lay off 384 workmen in its establishment with effect from November 5, 2001.2. We have heard Shri D.P. Nanda for the management-petitioner, Shri Patnaik, learned Additional Standing Counsel, for the Labour Commissioner and Shri Sashikanta Mishra for the intervenor- workmen.3. The case of the petitioner is that it is a registered company and has set up a Charge Chrome Plant at Randia, Bhadrak, which is a power intensive industry and is 100% export oriented. For various chronic sickness followed by host of economic and other unavoidable factors, it has made reference to the BIFR in November, 1998 under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. On account of depressed conditions prevalent in the overseas and also in the domestic market coupled w...
Gagan Bihari Das and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3415
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. The legal heirs of late Somanath Das who was an accused in T.R. Case No. 10 of 1996 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur have filed this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21-12-1994 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for release of the properties attached.2. As it appears from the record late Somanath Das was in Government service and while posted at Sohela his quarter was searched on the allegation that he had acquired properties dis-proportionate to his known sources of income. During such search, the Vigilance Department seized movable properties which include cash, ornaments and bank deposits. A case was registered against late Somanath Das for commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act which ultimately gave rise to T.R. Case No. 10 of 1986 in the Court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur. While the matter wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›