Orissa Court January 2003 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.
Sri Raj Kishore Agarwal and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT535; 2003(I)OLR367
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The petitioners, Co-owner purchasers of a plot of land, applied for approval of a building plan in the said plot in terms of the Orissa Development Authorities Act. An approved plan was sanctioned. The petitioners, in terms of the said Act and the relevant Rules, were allowed to construct a building in terms of the approved plan. But, the petitioners clearly violating the approved plan, started the construction. They did not leave any set back in the rear portion as per the approved plan. In that situation, the Cuttack Development Authority, issued a notice calling upon the petitioners to stop the construction. Defying the direction to stop construction in violation of the approved plan, the petitioners went ahead with the construction. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for making the construction in violation of the approved plan and in violation of the relevant provisions of the Orissa Development Authorities Act (hereinafter referred to...
Sitaram Nayak Vs. Smt. Usharani Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR370
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.2. This Civil Revision is taken up out of turn on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and stands disposed of because of the following reasons.3. Petitioner filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9, C.P.C. for demarcation of the land through the Court Amin and that has been rejected by the learned Court below inter alia, on the ground that the suit has been targetted by the High Court to be disposed of within a time frame. On being asked, Mr. Swain learned counsel for the petitioner states that in Civil Revision No. 3 of 2002 this Court issued a direction for disposal of the suit by the end of January, 2003. He also produces xerox copy of that order for perusal of this Court. It is seen from that order that it is at the instance of the present petitioner that such a target has been fixed.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to and relying on the case of Mahendranath Parida v. Purnananda Parida and Ors., 64 (1987) C.L.T. 722, stat...
Bangali Kandi and anr. Vs. Surendra Bhoi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT328; 2003(I)OLR315
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners is present. None appears for opposite parties 1 & 2, Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the request of Court, after verifying the case records, states the service of notice on all the opposite party members has been held to be sufficient.2. In view of the above submission, the Civil Revision is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.3. The order impugned in this Revision was passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar on 17.1,1994 in Misc. Case No. 309 of 1989 by rejecting the application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with the application filed for setting aside abatement and the confirming order passed by learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar in Misc, Appeal No. 97/10 of 1997/94.4. As it appears from the impugned orders and also from the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, the sole defendant died on 4.1.1990 at a stage when the suit had been disposed of (being dismissed for default)...
Dhruba Charan Mohanty Vs. Krushna Mohan Mohanty and anr. and Dr. Basan ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT597
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. This Civil Revision is taken up out of turn from the weekly list on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner with the consent of learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, who are the contesting party in the Court below.2. Heard.3. The short and simple question which is to be adjudicated in the application under Section 115, CPC is as to whether learned District Judge, Puri was justified in allowing the application for re-examination of P.W. No. 1 only for the limited purpose to get a categorical answer relating to the date on which he came to knowabout the existence of the 'Will'. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the entire cross-examination made by the petitioner shall be nullified by that re-examination. This Court does not agree with that contention of the petitioner. A dispute comes to the Court for adjudication in accordance with law. One answer or other allowed to be put for clarifications cannot n...
Sundar Majhi Vs. Lukhi Majhiani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT604; 2003(I)OLR295
B. Panigrahi, J 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in T. S. 19 of 1978 of the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Rairangpur (now Civil Judge, Senior Division) has filed this appeal against the dismissal of his suit claiming right, title, interest and possession for declaring him to be the adoption son of late Chuna Majhi.2. It is the appellant's case that late Chuna Majhi of Bada Gobra was the recorded owner of 'B' Schedule properties of the plaint. He had three wives, namely, Manda, Dangi and Lukhi. Manda died leaving behind her three daughters, namely, Parbati (defendant No. 2), Sanja and Ganga. After the death of Manda, Chuna married again to Dangi (defendant No. 5), but no child was born through her. Therefore, he married again to defendant No. 1 Lukhi. The further case of the appellant was that through Lukhi two more daughters were born, namely, Maya and Luli, who have been arrayed as defendants 3 and 4 respectively. Since Chuna had no male issue through any of his wives, therefore, he propo...
Prajatantra Prachar Samity Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ori)96; [2003]264ITR160(Orissa); 2003(I)OLR392
R.K. Patra, J.1. In obedience to the order of the Supreme Court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following three questions to this court for opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the exemption under Section 11 of the Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the method of computing the income followed by the assessee ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in declining to grant exemption to the assessee-trust on a completely new ground made out suo motu without affording an opportunity to the assessee to have its say on the said new ground ?'2. The facts of all the consolidated references in brief are as follows : The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), ...
Rajat Kumar Pattnayak Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT307; 2003(I)OLR187
A.K. Patnaik, J.1.Heard Mr. B. P. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate.2. The petitioner is the owner of a Maruti Van bearing registration No. OR-02-K-7642. The said Maruti Van of the petitioner was seized by the police on the allegation that it was involved in the offences under Section 47 (a)/ 55 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. In connection with the said offences, Aska P.S. Case No. 26 of 2002 was registered (G, R. Case No. 40 of 2002) and the case is pending in the court of the learned J. M. F. C., Aska. The petitioner filed an application under Section 457, Cr. P. C. before the learned J.M.F.C., Aska for release of the said vehicle during the pendency of the case. But the said application was rejected by order dated 8.2.2002. The petitioner moved the learned additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar, in Criminal Revision No. 8 of 2002 but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge declined to exercise revisional power under Sub-se...
Sanatan Barik and anr. Vs. Purna Chandra Barik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ori127; 2003(I)OLR281
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioners is present. None appears for the opposite party. Mr. Kar states that he could not find the address of the counsel for the opposite party, therefore, he could not intimate him. Since the name of the counsel is indicated in the cause list and he has not appeared either yesterday or today, therefore this revision will not be adjourned any further.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and this civil revision stands disposed of at the stage of admission in the following manner.3. Defendants in the Court below are the petitioners against the order of appointment of receiver with respect to the suit property as per order passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in Title Suit No. 443 of 1998. Opposite party is the plaintiff in that suit. As noted in the impugned judgments and also it reveals from the copy of the plaint, which is produced for perusal, that the suit has been filed for a declaration that no titl...
Nimai Bhandari @ Barik and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT208
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The appellants are the two accused persons out of five who have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 395 , of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.4.97 at about 9.30 P.M. while P.Ws. 1 and 2 and some other passengers were travelling in the Link Express, in between Muniguda and Therubali Railway Stations, 8 of the co-passengers started looting their fellow passengers in the compartment under threat of their lives at the point of knives. The culprits looted P.W. 1 and his wife P.W. 2 who belong to Andhra Pradesh and were travelling from Bilashpur to Bobbili. So far as these two witnesses are concerned, it is alleged that the culprits took away cash and gold ornaments from them. It is also alleged by the prosecution that other fellow passengers who were in the compartment were looted of their cash and cloths. In course of commission of offence one of the culprits namely Raju Pattn...
Nilanchal Panigrahi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT222
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The appellant having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the Penal Code and having been sentenced to imprisonment for seven years has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim girl who is aged about seven years was picking rag materials near Venkateswar temple, Berhampur on 6.5.1998. At that point of time the accused-appellant persuaded her to come with him so that he would give her some polythene bags. Lured by the accused, the victim girl accompanied him to a nearby delapidated house and it is alleged that the accused in the said house forcibly removed the under-garments of the victim girl and performed sexual intercourse with her causing injuries not only on per private part but also on the other part of the body. It is further alleged that after the incident the victim girl returned home weeping and narrated the incident to her mother. Some other ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »