Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(I)OLR70
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus has been referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench in view of the plea that the representation of the petitioner was dealt with by the Chief Minister in a routine manner indicating non-application of mind as held in paragraphs of the judgment in Sk. Samsa alias Sk. Samsuddin v. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in (2001) 20 OCR 468, 2001 (I) OLR 274 and hence the detention was bad in law. The Division Bench found in the present case that none of the other contentions raised by the detenu by way of challenge to the order of detention made under the National Security Act, 1980 was sustainable. Since the Division Bench found it difficult to agree with the rather wide observations in the above case, the case was referred to a Full Bench for decision.2. The argument was raised that the representation made by the detune was rejected by the Chief Minister without application of mind. The fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR382
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The accused-petitioners' application under Section 231(2) read with Section 311, Cr.P.C. to recall P.Ws. 1 and 2 for further cross-examination having been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda by order dated 6.12.1997, the petitioners have approached this Court in this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.2. The petitioners were accused in a case punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/302/34, IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Khurda P.S.Case No. 7 of 1996 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 29 of 1996 and presently pending in the Court Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T.No. 11/37 of 1997 for trial. The petitioners after examination of some prosecution witnesses, filed an-application under Section 231(2) read with Section 311, Cr.P.C. for recalling P.Ws. 1 and 2 for further cross-examination mainly on the ground that the counsel for the accused-petitioners was suffering from mental disturbance and severe headache on 1.9.1997 when...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR557
B.P. Das, J.1. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against an order dated 30.6.2000 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack in I.C.C. No. 24 of 1999 with a prayer to recall the order of taking cognizance in the said complaint case.2. The fact giving rise to this revision application as narrated tends to reveal that the opposite party instituted a complaint case which was registered as I.C.C. No. 10 of 1998 against the present petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in the said case cognizance of the aforesaid offence was taken by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20.2.1998. But the same was dismissed on 17.4.1999 under Section 204(4), Cr.P.C. as the complainant was absent and failed to file fresh requisites. Thereafter another complaint was Filed on 7.5.1999 on the self-same allegation and basing upon the same dishonoured cheque, which was registered as I.C.C. No. 24 of 1999 and cognizance was taken under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR423
A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. The husband of the petitioner, late Pitabas Moharana, was working as an Electrician under the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (for short 'the Grid Corporation') and he died while in service on 7.3.1995 leaving behind the petitioner, two daughters and two sons. One of his major sons applied for employment under the Family Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and when he was not given any such employment, he filed writ petition O.J.C. No. 14475 of 1997 and a Misc. Case No. 12533 of 1997 for interim orders. On 10.11.1997, this Court while issuing notice in the said writ petition passed an interim order in the said Misc. Case directing that the family pension etc, if admissible, shall be released by the opposite party in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt of the order. After the said order, the opp. parties released the provident fund dues in respect of late Pitabas Moharana but did not release the gratuity. On 17.3.1998, all of a sudden, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 94(2002)CLT447; 2003CriLJ642
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Perused the letter of the wife of the petitioner. The sum total of the contents in that letter is failure of the settlement which had been made between the parties on the efforts of this Court. The rest of the allegations are matters for her to take up appropriate legal action in appropriate forum. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, and this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of in the following manner. 3. Petitioner's prayer is to quash the order of cognizance in G.R. Case No. 284 of 2000 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Talcher. It appears from that order dated 13.9.2002 of learned S.D.J.M. thathe has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 452/363/34, IPC on the allegation that the petitioner came to the house of his father-in-law and took away the child from the custody of his wife and in that process used some criminal force. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dey argues that there was no intention no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 94(2002)CLT677
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard further argument. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of in the following manner.2. The Second Party members in Criminal Misc. Case No. 169 of 2001 of the Court of Executive Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, have challenged the order dated 19.6.2001 of that Court on the ground of illegality and impropriety in that order. The first party members in that proceeding are the opposite party members 1 and 2 in this case. It appears from the impugned order that learned Executive Magistrate has passed order for attachment under Section 146, Cr.P.C. and has appointed the local R.I. as the receiver for the subject matter of dispute. It is not disputed at the Bar that Title Suit No. 26 of 2001 has been filed by the first party members, inter alia, claiming for the relief of injunction and in that suit, application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC was dismissed by the trial Court after granting order of interim injunction and thereafter in Misc. Appeal No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR319
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendants are the appellants before this Court against a confirming judgment.2. Plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for partition of properties mentioned in Schedule-B of the plaint claiming half share therein.Case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that the land in dispute situate in Chakundapal village under Khata No. 32 measuring Ac. 14.63 decimals. One Chakra is the common ancestor who had two wives, Jana and Pana., Children of Pana had got separate properties in a civil suit earlier instituted for partition. Parties in the present suit are children of Jana through Chakra. Claim of the plaintiffs-respondents is that the lands having not been partitioned by metes and bonous, unequal shares are being enjoyed by the parties which they possess for convenience. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendants-appellants are in enjoyment of share more than the plaintiffs and because of the aforesaid reason plaintiff No. 1 requested the defendants for partitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR336
A.S. Naidu, J.1. What is impugned in this case is the order dated November 3, 2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Crl. Revision No. 80 of 1999 holding that as more than two years have already elapsed from the date of the charge, the G. R. Case should be dropped in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma v. The State of Bihar (1998) 15 OCR (SC) 530.2. The short facts for appreciating the case are as follows:On 18.8.88, an F.I.R. was filed in Purighat Police Station alleging that the accused persons have thrown Acid on the face of the informant and he sustained grievous injuries. On the basis of such an F.I.R., G.R. Case No. 1157 of 1988 was registered and the accused persons stood charged under Sections 341 and 324, I.P.C. Charges against the accused persons were framed on 29th July, 1993. In course of trial, out of 9 charge sheeted witnesses, only 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, for the reasons best known, no act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR430
B. Panigrahi, J.1. On consent of both parties, the Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2002 are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. The appellant-opposite party is the legally married wife of the respondent-petitioner and their marriage was solemnised on 5.6.1990 according to Hindu Rites and customs. After consummation of marriage, both the parties continued to live together till 9.2.1991. It is alleged by the appellant-wife that when the respondent-husband initiated a proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against her before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, they could not continue any longer under one roof. Therefore, the appellant-wife was constrained to remain separately from him.3. In the said proceeding, the present appellant had appeared and filed her written statement wherein it was alleged that the respondent-husband demanded a scooter and compelled her to bring it from her parents, but her parents due...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2002Ori214
A.S. Naidu, J. 1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Order 43, Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia challenging the Judgment passed in Money Appeal No. 3/1 of 1985/87 by the Addl. District Judge, Bargarti. Learned lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No. 10 of 1983 and remanded the suit under Order 23, Rule 23, C.P.C. for fresh disposal after affording opportunity to the plaintiff to file succession certificate within a time as would be just and reasonable. For appreciating the case, some of the facts are necessary to be discussed.2. Adimittedly, defendant No. 1 appellant took a loan of Rs. 9,601.00 from the father of the plaintiff (R-1) and pro forma defendants 2 and 3 by executing a pro-note on February 19, 1980. On February 11, 1983 the father of the plaintiff and pro forma defendants 2 and 3, Kora Surna, expired leaving behind the plaintiff and pro-forma defendants 2 arid 3 as his sole survivors and legal heirs. Thereafter ...
Tag this Judgment!