Orissa Court August 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.
Arjit Kumar Patra Vs. Vice Chancellor, Sambalpur University and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ori34; 94(2002)CLT733
A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. The Petitioner is a student of V.S.S. Medical College, Burla. He appeared at the second Final M.B.B.S. Examination held in October, 2001 conducted by the Sambalpur University at the V.S.S. Medical College, Burla Centre, Burla. A notice dated 28.11.2001 was issued by the Assistant Controller of Examination, Sambalpur University to the petitioner stating therein that it had been reported that the petitioner had adopted unfair means in the examination in obstretics and Gynaecology held on 13.11.2001. The specific charge in the said notice dated 28.11.2001 was that while the examination in the paper was in progress, the petitioner was found in possession of incriminating material. By the said notice, the petitioner was directed to explain in writing as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for violating the rules of examination. In his reply dated 18.2.2001 to the Controller of Examination, Sambalpur University, the petitioner stated that he was not...
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pravati Kar and a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ2021
Choudhury Pratap Keshari Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.10.1999 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Cuttack, in W.C. Case No. 424-D of 1997. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,90,611 under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act in favour of the claimant and has directed the insurance company to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days from the date of award.2. The case of the claimant-respondent No. 1 is that her husband late Umesh Chandra Kar was working as a driver of Trekker bearing registration No. OR 05-B 0435 belonging to Narahari Mishra (respondent No. 2 herein and the opposite party No. 1 before the Commissioner). On 11.12.1997 at about 10 a.m., while the deceased was performing his duty as driver of Trekker, the same met with an accident, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his person and was shifted to the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack, where...
Gokulananda Jena Vs. Jadunath Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(II)OLR453
B.P. Das, J.1. Heard Shri A.K.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite parties in spite of service of notice.2. This revision application arises out of the order dated 10.8.2001 passed in T.S.No. 58 of 1998 by which the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur, has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C in short) for withdrawal of the suit and rejected the application filed by defendant No. 2, the present petitioner, under Order 23, Rule 1-A, C.P.C. to transpose him as plaintiff.3. O.P.No. 1 filed the aforesaid suit against the present petitioner and O.P.Nos. 2 to 4 praying for partition of the suit schedule property. Defendant No. 1-O.P.No. 2-Radhanath Jena filed another suit, i.e. T.S.No. 244/1997, for partition of the above suit property as well as certain other properties. As it appears, by order dated 14.9.2000 passed in Civil Revision No. 16 of 2000, this Court directed the trial...
Smt. Trupti Das Vs. Rabindranath Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC427
B. Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 289 of 1994 Under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 directing a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant.2. The incontrovertible facts stated in the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court are as follows :The marriage between the two spouses was solemnised on 10.2.1989 as per the Hindu rites and customs and thereafter both parties led their conjugal life for a period of 2 to 3 months. It is the case of the respondent that after few months of marriage the cordial relationship between both the spouses did not continue longer and there was frequent dissensions, discord and unhappiness developed from time-to-time as a result of which the appellant voluntarily left her place of work and, thereafter, did not return to the matrimonial house. It has been further narrated that the husband-respondent was always put to severe mental tension...
Smt. Trupti Das Vs. Sri Rabindranath Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(II)OLR419
B. Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 289 of 1994 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu. Marriage Act, 1955 directing a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant.2. The incontrovertible facts stated in the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court is as follows :The marriage between the two spouses was solemnised on 10.2.1989 as per the Hindu rites and customs and thereafter both parties led their conjugal life for a period of 2 to 3 months. It is the case of the respondent that after few months of marriage the cordial relationship between both the spouses did not continue longer and there was frequent dissensions, discord and unhappiness developed from time to time as a result of which the appellant voluntarily left her place of work and, thereafter, did not return to the matrimonial house. It has been further narrated that the husband-respondent was always put to severe mental tension...
Kailash Chandra Nanda Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(II)OLR368
M. Papanna, J.1. Petitioner, Kailash Chandra Nanda, seeking the following reliefs such as :(i) Issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order under Annexure-2; (ii) Directing the Collector, Khurda, opposite party No. 2 to receive rent for the suit land from the petitioner; and (iii) Issue of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to intervene with his possession and enjoyment of the said land and also to pay him compensation for having suffered harassment and incurred heavy expenses; brought before this Court the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that he is the son of one Bengabati Dibya, who since 1942 was in possession of the case land after it was leased out in her favour by the ex-intermediary, Chakradhar Mohapatra of Alishabazar, Cuttack, for which she was paying rent and though the ex-intermediary issued her 'Hata Patta' dated 17.2.1942 for the said land which w...
Tofan Rout @ Sukanta Rout Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 94(2002)CLT340
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Though the L.C.R. has been called for, the same has not been received yet. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the punishment which has been imposed is on the higher side and therefore, save and except raising the legal question about defect in charge he does not want to, contest on any other issue and accordingly prays to dispose of the revision without perusal of the L.C.R. He states that he does not challenge any of the evidence on record to challenge the finding in the impugned judgment save and except the offence for which he should have been convicted. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to that submission. Hence, this revision is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission on consent of both the parties.2. Petitioner faced a Sessions trial in S.T. Case No. 170/ 77/570 of 1997-96 in the Court of C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar for the offence under Section 397, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 1.10.1996 he wanted to ...
Siba Prasad Moharana Vs. Dhadi Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 94(2002)CLT780
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner assails the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 151 of 1998 passed under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the very same Sub-Divisional Magistrate had passed an order under Section 133, Cr.P.C. restraining the petitioner from obstructing user by any other person of the disputed land which is recorded under Sthitiban status in the name of the petitioner and directing him to establish his right in the Civil Court. The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 1998 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and by order dated 16.5.1998, the order was set aside, holding that in a proceeding under Section 133, Cr.P.C., a Magistrate is not authorised to declare easementary right. But inspite of the revisional order the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has now passed the impugned order purportedly in the garb of an order u...
National Aluminium Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. G.C. Kanungo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(II)OLR362
B.P. Das, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the order dated 23.7.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul, in M.J.C. No. 2 of 2001 making the award a rule of the Court.2. National Aluminium Company Ltd. ('NALCO' in short), which is an existing company under the Companies Act, 1956, and its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the appellants herein, challenge the aforesaid order dated 23.7.2001 on the ground that the learned Civil Judge has lost sight of the aspect that the claim raised by the respondent was barred by limitation under Section 137 of the Limitation Act. In this regard it is argued that even though the learned Civil Judge in paragraph 8 of his order observed that the claim was barred by limitation, yet he did not interfere with the award.3. Before going into the merits of the case, it is worthwhile to briefly narrate the facts giving rise to the present proceeding.The present respondent, who is a co...
Sankar Naik and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 94(2002)CLT549
P. K. Tripathy, J. 1. Heard further argument. 2. In course of argument, the decision in the case of Michael Machado and Anr. v. C.B.I. and Anr. reported in (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 441 and Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh and Anr., (2002) 22 OCR (SC) 811 are cited at the Bar in the context of the procedure to be followed by the Trial court as per Section 319(4), Cr.P.C. once an application under Section 319(1), Cr.P.C. is allowed by adding accused. 3. The facts are not in dispute that petitioners have been added as accused pursuant to an order under Section 319(1), Cr.P.C. passed by learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in SC. No. 6 of 1999 arising out of Bhanjanagar P.S. Case No. 250 of 1997. That order under Section 319(1), Cr.P.C. is also not challenged at present before this Court. After their appearance petitioner insisted for a de novo trial and as per the order dated 12.7.1999 trial Court has turned down such a request and observed that petitioners are entitled to cross-examin...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »