Orissa Court June 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.
Angada Pujhari Vs. Kanhei Pujhari and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: 94(2002)CLT361
B.P. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' hereinafter) directed against the award passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, in M.J.C. No. 143 of 1986, arising out of a reference made under Section 18 of the Act. 2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated thus ; A total area of Ac. 6.84 of land covered by plot Nos. 1135 and 1136 under Khata No. 33 in village Karanjiguda under Jaipatna PS. in Kalahandi district was compulsorily acquired by the Government of Orissa for construction of 400/200 K.V. Sub-station, Indravati, pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4(i) of the Act in that regard. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation at Rs. 39,014.22 in favour of the present appellant Angada Pujhari. But before the amount of compensation could be paid, a dispute over payment of such amount to the appellant having been raised by one Kanhei Pujhari, respondent No. 1, the Land ...
Rabinarayan Mahasuar Vs. Lokanath Mahasuar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ori5; 2002(II)OLR221
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner has filed this revision challenging the order dated 7.2.2002 of the District Judge, Puri, in M. A. No. 98 of 2000 reversing the order dated 31.8.2000 of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Puri in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2000 (arising out of Title Suit No. 19/501 of 1996/98).2. The petitioner is the defendant and the opposite parties are the plaintiffs who have come on record being substituted as the legal representatives of the original plaintiff (since dead).The original plaintiff has filed the suit under Order XX, Rule 15, CPC for winding up the partnership firm and for settlement of accounts for the period from 1.4.1982 till the date of the alleged dissolution of the partnership firm on 10.7.1996. His case is that a partnership deed was executed on 30.4.1982 by and between the parties to run the hotel business in the name and style of 'Hotel Basanti' with effect from 1.4.1982. The partnership business was nomenclatured as 'partnership at will'. ...
Renuka Dash Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(II)OLR279
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. By an admission notice published on 23.5.2001 the Principal, College of Nursing; Berhampur invited applications in the prescribed form from the inservice Nursing Personnel working under the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State for selection and admission into Post Certificate B. Sc. Nursing course at the College of Nursing. Berhampur. In the said admission notice, it was, inter alia, stipulated that to be eligible for applying for two years Post Certificate B.Sc. Nursing, a candidate must have passed intermediate/+2 Examination or equivalent examination. Pursuant to the said admission notice, the petitioner submitted an application on 6.6.2001 in the prescribed form. Against column No. 18 of the prescribed application form which relates to particulars of academic qualification of the candidate, the petitioner indicated therein that she had passed High School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and obtained B.A. D...
Pradip Kumar Patra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: 94(2002)CLT518
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Heard both sides. The prayer in this writ petition is for the issue of a direction to the opposite parties to take necessary steps for payment of arrears of salary of the petitioner for the period from June, 1992 to February, 1998 within a period to be stipulated by this Court. When this matter came up earlier, we directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to get instructions in the light of the allegations made in the writ petition supported by relevant materials. Today, the learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted on instructions, that the petitioner was eligible for the arrears of grant-in-aid for the period from June, 1992 to February, 1998, but the same could not be released due to constraints a resources faced by the State Government. It is also submitted that the State Government, at the moment is not in a position even to fully meet the requirement of the salary component for the twelve months of the year of the non-government a...
Rabi Bhoi and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(II)OLR258
B. Panigrahi, J.1. The order dated 15.06.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri In S.T. Case No. 284 of 1992 convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in short, 'IPC' and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life has been assailed in this appeal.2. The prosecution case which has been narrated in brevity in the trial Court's judgment is as follows :On 26.9.1990 on the Mahaastami day in the month of Aswina (Dasahara), the deceased Laxmidhar Pradhan alias Lakhia along with his companions, namely, Baidyanath Nanda (P.W.6), Bhikari Behera (P.W.8) and Braja Pradhan went out for a feast. On the way near Mangalahat Mahabir Chhak, Suria alias Surendra Sahu (P.W.4) also joint them. Braja took the food articles ahead of other companions to Bada Pokhari Jaga, the place where they arranged the feast. P.Ws.6, 8 and the deceased Lakhia remained back at Mahabir Chhak to purchase some spices, betel and bidi (tobacco). It has been described further that fro...
Puri-konark Development Authority Vs. Ratna Bhadra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ori207; 94(2002)CLT95; 2002(II)OLR128
A.S. Naidu, J. 1. The Puri-Konark Development Authority, a creature of the Orissa Development Authorities Act (hereinafter called 'the ODA Act' for brevity), has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to examine any order passed under Section 91 of the ODA Act and / or pass any order of injunction restraining the Statutory Authorities constituted under the ODA Act from carrying on their statutory duties. It has also been prayed to issue appropriate direction to dismiss Title Suit Nos. 382/97, 443/97, 215/98, 217/98 and 221/98 as also Misc. Case Nos. 246/97, 277/97, 137/98, 139/98 and 144/98 respectively pending before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Puri initiated by the Opposite Parties. 2. By order dated December 15, 1998, while issuing Rule Nisi, this Court was pleased to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid suits and call for the lower court records for perusal. All the said s...
Banwarilal Newatia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ori184; 94(2002)CLT15
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. When the appeal came up for admission it was taken up for final hearing and disposal, with the consent of counsel for the parties. Counsel on all the sides were heard in detail.2. The appellant on 6.4.1981 applied for the grant of a prospecting licence under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') over an area of 332 acres in villages Dalimpur, Salarpenth etc. in the district of Keonjhar. On 29.4.1981, he made another application for the grant of Mining Lease for the said area. That application for mining lease was not disposed of within a period of twelve months as prescribed the Statute with the result that it was deemed that that application stood rejected. The appellant challenged that deemed rejection before the Central Government by way of a revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On 30.6.1982, the Central Government allowed t...
Sanju Panda (Advocate) Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: 94(2002)CLT26; 2002(II)OLR189
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Petitioner is a practising advocate. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in public interest. According to the petitioner, when she went to Puri, she found unauthorised constructions coming up on the beach in clear violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications and in violation of Building Regulations and other laws relating to construction of buildings in urban areas. She was particularly shocked by the unauthorised construction put up by opposite party No. 3 encroaching into the beach near Chakratirtha, raising the construction and a boundary wail within 40 metres of the sea-shore. The petitioner understood that it was a hotel that was being constructed. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the building was being constructed by opposite party No. 3 and that opposite party No. 3 was doing it without obtaining the required clearance from the authorities for such construction. This Court issued notices to the opposite parties. The opposite...
State of Orissa Vs. Ramwatar Agarwala and After Him, His L. Rs. Smt. B ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: 94(2002)CLT158
A.S. Naidu, J. 1. After going through the voluminous documents and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we feel the entire case is much ado about nothing, inasmuch as out of Ten issues, Nine have become final and concluded.2. Money Suit No. 20 of 1975 was filed by the original respondent No. 1 (since deceased), a businessman, as the sole plaintiff inter alia praying to pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 35,98,441.60 towards cost of paddy/rice, etc. and damages, morefully described in Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C' of the plaint, together with costs of the suit and pendentelite and future interest. But subsequently the suit claim was reduced to Rs. 26,11,731.76 as the plaintiff was unable to pay the court-fees required on the amount initially claimed.3. According to the plaintiff, he was working as a Purchasing Agent under the State of Orissa in the district of Kalahandi for the year 1966-67 and also worked as Purchasing-cum-Milling-cum-Storage Agent for the Khariff year 1973-74. He ...
Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: 94(2002)CLT317
Pradip Mohanty, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in which challenge is made to the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No. 512 of 2000 dismissing the Original application filed by the petitioner for being fitted in the higher scale of Pay of Rs. 5500/- -- 9000/-.2. The case of the petitioner in nut shell is that, he was working as Radio Technician in the Department of Light Houses and Light Ships under the Ministry of Surface and Transport. The Director General (Opp. party No. 2) had issued an office order dated 15.1.1998 under Annexure - 1 according approval for grant of higher scale of pay of Rs. 5500-175-9000/- to the Technicians (General/Electrical/Electronics/Diesel/lncharge) with effect from 1.1.1996. Since the petitioner was left out, he felt aggrieved and made a representation to opposite party No. 2 to upgrade his scale of pay on the basis of recom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »