Orissa Court February 2003 Judgments
Laxmidhar Roul Vs. Debraj Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT566; 2004CriLJ164; 2003(I)OLR461
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The question referred to us for decision by the Division Bench read as follows :'Whether the Sections 28(1), 28(3-b) and 33-A mentioned and the other provisions of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 (in short, 'the Act') have come into operation ?'The Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 came into force on 13.2.1963. Since then, there were various amendments to that Act. The Orissa Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, Act 28 of 1991, by Sections 19, 27 and 28 thereof, amended Sections 28(1), 28(3-b)(1), 33-A and 33-B of the Parent Act. Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act, Act 28 of 1991 provided that the various provisions of the Act as amended or the amended Sections, would come into effect as on the date notified in the Gazette. Though the question referred to us for decision is whether Sections 28(1), 28(3-b) and 33-A as amended by Act 28 of 1991 have come into force or were ever notified bringing them into force, it is the admitted case bef...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rama Panigrahi Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT724; 2003(I)OLR438
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. Town Girls' High School, Balangir was an aided institution within the meaning of Orissa Education Act. It was within the grant-in aid fold with effect from 1.3.1974. On 17.9.1979, the petitioner in this writ petition, a science graduate in Natural Science with Chemistry and Certificate of Teachers Training, entered service as a Physical Education Teacher. According to the staffing pattern fixed by the Government as per order dated 8.7.1981, the said school had eight teachers including the Headmistress and the petitioner, the Physical Education Teacher. Against the additional sections, two other teachers, including opposite party No. 5, were working. On 9.11.1981, the petitioner became a Trained Graduate. A new yard-stick was prescribed by the Government with effect from 1.6.1983. But, it came into force only on 8.7.1991. Steps were taken to meet that yard-stick. On 12.1.1991, opposite party No. 5 was promoted to a rank in the Trained Graduate scale against...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanashyam Lenka and Soubhagya Chandra Das Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT703
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Criminal Revision No. 295 of 1997 has been filed challenging the order dated 10.4.1997 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Cuttack in G. R. Case No. 196 of 1990 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to recall the order taking cognizance. C.R.L.M.C. No. 17 of 2002 has been filed challenging the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack in the aforesaid G.R. Case dated 21.2.1994 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A. 420, 109, 119, 120-B and 34 of the Penal Code. 2. So far as the Criminal Revision No. 295 of 1997 is concerned. It appears that after the learned Magistrate took cognizance in respect of the offences mentioned above in the aforesaid G. R. Case the petitioner and one Zamil Ahmed Khan filed applications separately for recalling the order taking cognizance on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.M. Mathew v. State of Keraia, reported in 1992 (5) OCR 66. The petitioner in his application for recalling the order...
Tag this Judgment!Ocl India Limited and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ori117
A.S. Naidu, J.1. M/s. OCL India Limited, an existing Company engaged in the business of manufacture of cement and refractory products, having its registered office and factory at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundargarh, Orissa, seeks to challenge the inclusion of its 'Industrial Township' within the purview of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 and prays mainly for issuance of a mandamus commanding the opposite parties to alter, cancel or rescind the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 so as to exclude from its operation and purview of 'Industrial Township' constituted and notified under Section 4 of the Orissa Municipal Act. There is also a further prayer to declare Section 2 (f) of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 as amended to the extent it seeks to levy Entry Tax on goods entering the area within the Industrial Township constituted under Section 4 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 as ultra vires apart from other ancillary prayers.2. In course of hearing, Mr. Gangadhar Rath, learned senior Advoca...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Bimbadhar Khuntia
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR468
B. Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by causing delay of more than 2 1/2 years along with an application for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. At the time of hearing of the application for condonation of delay, we thought it proper to hear the matter on merits. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the State has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khurda in a case under Section 302. I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.3. The prosecution case is that prior to six months of occurrence i.e. on 4.2.1995 the deceased Gada alias Gayadhar Behera kidnapped the sister of the respondent, opp. party Bimbadhar for which there was a dispute in the village, but. the matter was somehow subsided amicably. On the date of incident at about...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Chandola Pradhan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(II)OLR236
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the order dated 1.2.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.). Deogarh, in L.A. Case No. 6 of 2000.2. The facts in brief leading to this first appeal are stated herein below :Pursuant to notification dated 23.1.1975 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in E.O.G. No. 4573 dated 21.1.1978, the Government of Orissa acquired Ac. 8.74 decimals of land under Khata No. 29 of 2/3 of mouja Goudasuguda under Barkote P.S. in the district of Deogarh, which belonged to the respondents-claimants, for the purpose of construction of Rengali Dam Project. The Land Acquisition Officer, Deogarh, determined the value of the acquired lands at Rs. 51,731,60 paise and, accordingly, awarded the compensation to the claimants which they received on protest.The claimants-respondents filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer, Deogarh, alleging that they are the owner in possession of the lands, which included Gharabari, tree...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. and Vs. Dushasan Naik and
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT787; 2003(I)OLR454
B. Panigrahi, J. 1. Since both these writ petitions arise from a common judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, they are heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. The writ petitioner Dushasan Naik in OJC No. 13569 of 2000 was working as Sub- Post Master in Mukhiguda Post Office within Kalahandi Division. It was noticed in the Acquittance Roll that an amount of Rs. 1991.10 paise was drawn to be paid in favour of Santosh Kumar Satpathy, E.D.D.A., Ghutrukhal Branch Post Office towards his allowance. But, since the amount was not paid to Santosh Kumar Satpathy an allegation was brought to the notice of the authorities that some one by committing forgery has taken the amount. Therefore, an enquiry was made, where it was originally found that Bhaja Gobinda Satpathy might have taken the money by putting signature of his brother Santosh Satpathy. But subsequently, on further enquiry it was noticed that the writ petitioner has allowed one Subash...
Tag this Judgment!Sidheswar Sahu Vs. Second Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ori58
ORDER1. In this writ petition filed by the judgment-debtor, the order of the District Court in revision rejecting the objection raised by the judgment-debtor to the executability of the decree is challenged. Since what is challenged is the decision of the Executing Court as modified by the Revisional Court, this proceeding can be understood only as one initiated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot apply and a writ of certiorari cannot issue to a Civil Court as has been held by the Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1.2. One Moti Dei, mother of the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of an extent of land in favour of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 said to be the sons of her brother. The land agreed to be transferred was a piece of urban land for the consideration referred to in the agreement. Before entering into that agreement Moti Dei had filed a return under Section 6(...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR470
R.K. Patra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.5.1997 of the learned Sessions Judge. Dhenkanal in S.T. Case No. 200 of 1993 by which the appellant Kishore Chandra Sahu has been convicted under Section 302. I.P.C. and appellant Gopal Sahu has been convicted under Section 109. I.P.C. read with Section 302. I.P.C. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.4.1993 at about noon appellant Kishore and P.W.5 quarrelled with each other in the village Tank of San Dagadari. The appellant Kishore while coming away after taking bath threatened P.W.5 with dire consequences. Some time thereafter both the appellants were found standing on the village read with a view to assault P.W.5. Hearing the shout aiming at P.W.5, deceased Brundaban and his elder brother Balabhadra came rushing to the spot. Brundaban was trying to dissuade the appellants from creating any untoward incident and suggested to them that the dis...
Tag this Judgment!Chintamani Sethi Vs. Raghunath Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2866
B.P. Das, J.1. This appeal calls in question the order dated 17-10-1987 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karanjia in ICC No. 60/86-87 acquitting the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955.2. Initially Sri K.C. Lenka, Sri D.K. Swain and Sri J.K. Mohanty, Advocates had filed vakalatnama for the appellant. As they did not appear on different dates, Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate was appointed by this Court as amicus curiae. Similarly, though Sri B. Dash, Sri M. Acharya and Sri P.P. Roy had filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent, as none of them appeared; notice was issued to the respondent. However, today there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.3. The fact leading to this appeal is that a complaint was filed by the present appellant alleging therein that on 22-8-1986 at about 8.00 A.M. the present respondent, who is a Sarapanch and also the Presiden...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »