Orissa Court September 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.
Gantei Bisoi and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT108
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard argument from learned counsel for both the parties and this application under Section 482, read with Section 407, Cr.P.C. is disposed of at the stage of admission on consent of both the parties.2. Petitioners are the accused persons in Sessions Case No. 163 of 2002 pending in the Court of Sessions Judge at Berhampur. That case arises out of G. R. Case No. 84 of 2000 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Purusottampur. Petitioner's application for taking of the case in the Circuit Court at Chhatrapur was rejected by learned Sessions Judge on 23.4.2002 on the ground that he does not hold Sessions Circuit at Chhatrapur. Thereafter the present application has been filed, in which prayer has been made to issue a direction to the Sessions Judge to conduct the trial of the aforesaid case at Chhatrapur Circuit or to transfer the same to one of the Additional Sessions Judge for trial of the case at Chhatrapur Sessions Circuit.3. Mr. Nayak, learned Counsel for the petitioners ...
Durowelds Private Limited and ors. Vs. the Tata Iron and Steel Company ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 94(2002)CLT726
P.K. Mohanty, J. 1. In all these Criminal Revisions common question of fact and law being involved and parties more or less being the same, on the prayer and on agreement of the learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioner No. 1 is Durowelds Private Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 represented by its Managing Director, Petitioner No. 2 and Director petitioner No. 3. These Criminal Revisions arise out of I.C.C. Case No. 190 of 2001, 320 of 2001, 378 of 2001, 487 of 2001, 486 of 2001, 184 of 2002, 638 of 2001, 639 of 2001, 739 of 2001 and 46 of 2002 respectively.3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners are the accused persons in the complaint filed against them by M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheques issued by them having bounced due to inadequate funds. The petitioners filed an application under Section 205 of the Cod...
Gayadhar Alias Harekrushna Barik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(II)OLR594
B. Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order/judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 1993 hereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC for commission for the murder of one Ghanashyam Parida and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The brief history of the prosecution case as unravelled in course of trial is as follows :On 15.11.1992 at about 8.30 A.M. the deceased Ghanashyam Parida, the paternal uncle of informant (P.W.8), had gone to look after his potato field situated in Jiginipur. At that time, the appellant was nourshing his cauliflower field. When the deceased Ghanashyam Parida reached near the land of one Dhanu Samal, which was lying adjacent to the appellant's field, all on a sudden, the appellant dealt blows by means of a spade on the head of the deceased and thereafter ran away with the spade. The incident was witnessed by Sulochana Das (P.W.2), Suresh Kumar Mulia (P.W.3) and Ash...
Dolly Roy Vs. Raja Roy
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC44
B. Panigrahi, J.1. In the aforementioned civil appeal and criminal revision the appellant-wife has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela dated 16.12.1998 and 25.9.1998 in Civil Proceeding No. 88/1997 and Criminal Proceeding No. 64/1997 respectively allowing the prayer of the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal right Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-wife for maintenance Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The factual matrix leading to these cases is as follows :The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 26.11.1995 according to Hindu rites and customs. Their' marriage was consummated immediately thereafter. The appellant-wife joined her matrimonial house and stay there for about a year. During the period' of gestation she came back to her parents' house. Before birth of the child she was take...
Araque Lutifi @ Dazy Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT35
B. Panigrahi, J. 1. The sole appellant in this appeal has challenged the order of his conviction under Sections 302/392/201, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda. By the said order, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, read with Section 34 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for five years and one year under Sections 392 and 201 IPC respectively, it has further been directed that in view of the sentence passed under Section 302, read with 34 IPC, the latter sentences would not be operative. But, in case the same is set aside, varied or modified, the other sentences shall run consecutively.2. The factual matrix leading to this appeal is as follows :The appellant along with his two other associates stood prosecuted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 364/302/ 392/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in short 'IPC', for having kidn...
Rajanibala Das Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ori28; 94(2002)CLT572; 2002(II)OLR614
R.K. Patra, J. 1. In a lottery system when there is an element of chance or luck, is the Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack justified in proposing to dispose of the applications received from the intending operators for grant of stage carriage permits through lottery process This is the moot question that arises for consideration in this writ petition filed by one of the intending operators to operate her vehicle (Bus) on Cuttack-Paradeep route when she seeks to assail the notice No. 3910 dated 13.8.2002 at Annexure-1. 2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that she applied for grant of permit on 15.12.1995 for operation of her bus bearing registration number OR-04-6075 as Express Service on Cuttack-Paradeep route. The Regional Transport Authority (in brief 'RTA') duly received it but instead of disposing of the same on merit in accordance with law, has kept it pending without passing any order thereon. The approached the concerned authority on many occasions but her reques...
Basanti Mohanty Alias Raut Vs. Parikhit Rout
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ori20; I(2003)DMC214; 2002(II)OLR588
B. Panigrahi, J.1. The appellant who was the petitioner in Criminal Proceeding No. 166 of 1993 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act has challenged the validity, propriety and legality of the order passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, Cuttack dated 16-7-1999 whereunder the application filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. The factual matrix leading to this appeal is as follows :That, both the appellant and the respondent are the residents of village Kapaleswar within the district of Kandrapara. Their houses are very close to each other. It has been alleged by the appellant that there was a pre-marital affair between the appellant and the respondent which culminated in marriage on 10th July, 1987. Immediately after the marriage both the spouses led a happy conjugal life, but their relationship gradually deteriorated on account of the respondent insisting for more dowry articles from the parents of the appellant. She was subjected to unabated torture and har...
Susmita Acharya Vs. Dr. Rabindra Kumar Mishra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ori23; I(2003)DMC421; 2002(II)OLR610
B. Panigrahi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common order and the Judgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. 2. The appellant is the wife of the respondent-husband in both the appeals one against the order refusing maintenance to her and the other against the order grant-Ing divorce by snapping the marital tie between both the spouses. The appellant married the respondent according to the Hindu rites and customs prevalent in the society on 7-3-1988 and after such solemnisation of marriage it was consummated immediately thereafter. Out of their lawful wed-lock a female child was born. The respondent-husband was working as a Doctor and is also continuing as such in S.C.B. Medical College at the moment. Immediately after the marriage, they could not lead a happy conjugal life, as there was frequent dissension, dispute and bitterness between both the...
Krushna Chandra Barik Vs. Nimai Charan Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR66
B.P. Das, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 21.8.2001 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Jajpur, in T. A. No. 10 of 1998, rejecting petitioner's application praying for abatement of the appeal.2. The short facts necessary for disposal of this revision application may be stated thus :The father of O.P. No.l Batakrushna Panda, and O. P. No. 2, Nilakantha Panda, filed T. S. No. 183 of 1992 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur, impleading the present petitioner as defendant No. 1 and O. P. Nos. 3 to 5 as defendant Nos. 2 to 4, for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and further for a declaration that the suit land was part and parcel of the plaintiffs' R. S. plot No. 4948 and not of defendants' C.S. plot No. 2133. The plaintiffs also prayed for confirmation of their possession over the suit land and alternatively for recovery of possession with a decree of permanent injunction against defendant No. 1...
Ocl India Limited and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(II)OLR581
R.K. Patra, J. 1. The order dated January 30, 2002 (Annexure-5) passed by the Labour Commissioner, Orissa under Sub-section (3) of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') refusing permission for retrenchment of 270 workmen in the Industrial establishment of the Orissa Cement Limited (petitioner No. 1) is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 OCL India Limited is an existing company under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundargarh and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement and refractory products. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the shareholders of petitioner No. 1. The refractory establishment of petitioner No. 1 was established in 1956 and was one of the largest of its kind in Asia. Following recession in the steel industry in the world, the Refractory unit became unviable. As a r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »