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.
Basudev Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 94(2002)CLT623
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard. 2. In this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., petitioners challenge order of the Sessions Judge, Balasore in Misc. Case No. 747 of 2001 under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). Admittedly, petitioners belong to the informant's group in G. R. Case No. 586 of 1998 and they are the accused in S. T. Case No. 11/23 of 2000 pending for trial in the Court of C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhadrak. That Sessions Case was registered on commitment of G. R. Case No. 585 of 1998 by the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak. Steps taken by the petitioners for commitment of G. R. Case No. 586 of 1998 to the Court of Session as the counter case to G. R, Case No. 585 of 1998 having been turned down by learned Sessions Judge on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the basis of the ratio in the case of Budhadev Panda v. State of Orissa and Anr., (1995) 8 OCR 104 and Pitabas Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa, (2000) 18 OCR 174, petition...
Fatema Bibi and ors. Vs. Sk. Akbar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ori41
B. Panigrahi, J. 1. Plaintiff's in Title Suit No. 130 of 1980 of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. Bhadrak are in appeal challenging dismissal of their suit by the Judgment and decree passed therein.2. For better appreciation of the case of both parties it is necessary to quote the admitted genealogy given in the plaint. GENEALOGY Sk. Manohar Ali / Sk. Asgar Ali / Zobeda @ Zabeda Bibi(Wife) / (D.3) _____________________________/___________________________________ / / / / /Sk.Akbar Ali Sk. Umar Ali Fatema Bibi Sayera Banu Ayesha Sultana(D.1) (D.2) (Plff.1) (Plff.2) (Plff.3)It is revealed from the genealogy that one Sk. Manohar Ali had only one son, namely, Sk. Asgar Ali. Sk. Asgar Ali died leaving behind his widow Zobeda @ Zabeda Bibi, who has been arrayed as defendant No. 3 in the suit before the trial Court. Sk. Asgar Ali had two sons, namely, Sk. Akbar Ali and Sk. Umar Ali who have been arrayed as defendants and 2 respectively, and three daughters namely, Fatema Bibi, Sayera...
Balavadra Das Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Mishra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(II)OLR374
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant before the Court against a reversing judgment.The suit was filed for mandatory injunction directing removal of encroachment made by the defendant-respondent and for damages.2. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that in the year 1950-51 a colony was established over several plots and all the plots are under Khata Nos. 43 and 70 in village Kundhaibenta Sahi. Said colony plan bearing No. 125 was prepared by the Puri Municipality-defendant No. 1. The plan consists of several holdings owned by different individuals and the plaintiff is the owner in possession of holding No. 36 plot Nos. 127 and 128. Plaintiff has got his residential house on the aforesaid two plots. Holding No. 37, plot Nos. 129 and 130 covered under the colony plan is owned and possessed by defendant No. 2, Holding No. 35, plot Nos. 123, 124, 125 and 126 under the colony plan belong to the defendants 3 and 4. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the plan of the colony pre...
Panchu Pradhan Vs. Ramachandra Sethi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(II)OLR392
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant No. 2 is the appellant before this Court against a confirming judgment.2. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit for permanent injunction. The suit was compromised as against defendants 1 and 3 and allowed: on contest against the defendant No. 2. The appeal preferred by the defendant No. 2 before the Additional Suborlinate Judge, Puri having been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.3. The case of the plaintiff-respondents 1 to 4 is that the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No. 4 Halu Sethi was the owner in possession of the suit properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The record of rights in respect of the suit land stands recorded in the name of Halu Sethi. After death of Halu Sethi, the plaintiffs are possessing the same peacefully and the defendants have got no right, title and, interest over the same. Further allegation in the plaint is that the defendants are trying to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit...
Smt. Purnima Sahu Vs. Snehadhara Industries Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ori58; 2003(I)OLR109
ORDERB.P. Das, J.1. The notice against the opposite party was published in local newspaper as it was not possible to serve the notice on it in regular course. The same was accepted as sufficient. None appears for the opposite party when the matter is taken up. 2. This application is directed, against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in Title Suit No. 17 of 1977 dismissing the suit on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. 3. The petitioner was the plaintiff in Court below and she filed the aforesaid suit for' recovery of damages. The defendant after entering appearance fifed its written statement along with an application under order 151 C. P. C., raising the question of jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit, which was taken up as a preliminary issue. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) answered the said preliminary issue against the plaintiff-petitioner and dismissed the suit due to lack of jurisdiction. While taking up the preliminary issue as...
Mohan Charan SwaIn Vs. Aswini Kumar Swain
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC693
B. Panigrahi, J.1. These civil appeals arise out of a common order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 88 and 385 of 1995. Civil Appeal Nos. 44 and 45 of 2000 have been filed by the appellant-husband against the order allowing Civil Proceeding No. 385/1995 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 200/- per month towards maintenance of the minor son and against dismissal of Civil Proceeding No. 88/1995 filed by the appellant under Section 12(l)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Civil Appeal No. 50/2000 has been filed by the minor son of both parties represented through the mother guardian-respondent for modification of the order passed in Civil Proceeding No. 385/ 1995 by enhancing the amount of maintenance to Rs. 1,000/- per month for the minor son.2. The factual matrix leading to these appeals is as follows : The husband appellant as petitioner filed an application against the wife-resp...
Ambika Prasad Bhatta Vs. Nehru Paribesh Surakshya Committee and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ori26; 94(2002)CLT337; 2002(II)OLR543
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This Civil Review petition has been filed with a prayer to review the judgment passed on May 16, 2002 in O.J.C. No. 8254 of 2002 since reported in 94 (2002) CLT 34. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Durga Stone Crusher, a stone crushing unit, situated on Plot Nos. 1024 and 1569 appertaining to Khata No. 97 of village Chandrabahel under Angul Tahsil. The Writ Petition (OJC No. 8254 of 2000) in the shape of a Public Interest Litigation, was filed in this Court inter alia praying for issuance of direction to opposite parties 1 to 4 therein to close down the said Crusher Unit mainly on the ground that the siting criteria formulated for establishment of stone crushers formulated by the State Prevention and Control of Pollution Board, were grossly violated and that the 'No Objection Certificates' were issued by the concerned authorities for establishment of the said stone crusher without keeping in view the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the ...
Manorama Rath Vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ509Ori
A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner joined the Orissa Mining Corporation Limited (in short, the Corporation) as a Receptionist cum Telephone Operator in the year 1966 was promoted to the post of Senior Receptionist- cum-Telephone Operator in the year 1982. The petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement dated March 30, 1998. Her application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Managing Director of the Corporation with effect from May 31, 1998. The petitioner was paid ex gratia payment equivalent to 461/2 months emoluments and one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice.After she had retired on May 31, 1998, the pay of the employees of the Corporation were revised with effect from January 1, 1996. The petitioner was paid the differential amount towards her salary on account of such revision of her pay with effect from January 1, 1996, she was also paid the differential amount towards gratuity, leave encashment and Contributory Provident Fund on account of su...
Dhanurjaya Putel and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(II)OLR412
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Both the petitioners are the accused persons in G. R. Case No. 94 of 1998 of the Court of J, M. F. C., Kantabanji. In that case learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 367, I.P.C. read with Section 25 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Services) Act, 1979 (in short 'the Act 1979'). Petitioners moved an application in the Court below to recall that order of cognizance on the ground of absence of prima, facie case. That application having been rejected by learned J.M.F.C. as per the impugned order dated 21.3.2001 petitioners have moved this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.2. At the stage of argument, Mr. D. P. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to .quash the order of cognizance with respect to the offences under Section 367, I.P.C. He argues that though the offence under Section 25 of the Act, 1979 is also not absolutely made out but there being ah arguable point, pe...
Kumuda Ranjan Panda Vs. Padmanava Panda and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: 94(2002)CLT626
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of at the stage of admission on consent and active participation of both the parties. 2. It may not be a case of rare instance where old aged parents claim maintenance from a son by knocking the door of the Court where both the parties express justification in respect of their action, that is to say, parents claiming for maintenance on the ground of negligence and refusal by the son to maintain and son defending the issue by stating about unreasonable attitude of the parents. This is a case of that nature. The order dated 24.1.2000 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur in refusing a chance to the petitioner to contest the case and the confirming order of learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Revision No. 27 of 2000, is before this Court for considering under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Technically speaking, the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not maintai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »