Orissa Court March 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Represented by General Manager, S.E. Railway Vs. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(II)OLR11
B.P. Das, J.1. This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.') is directed against the order dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rayagada, in M.J.C. No. 30 of 1997 rejecting an application under Order 9. Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying for , setting aside the ex parte decree passed against defendant No. 1, i.e., the present appellant, in Money Suit No. 42 of 1995.2. The case of the appellant, as it transpires from the facts narrated in the appeal memo, as well as the impugned order and from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is that respondent No. 1 herein filed the aforesaid Money Suit No. 42 of 1995 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Rayagada, against defendant No. 1- the General Manager, South Eastern Railways, Calcutta, and defendant No. 2, one of the employees of defendant No. 1, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,10,000/ -for the loss sustained by him in a railway acciden...
M. Santama Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR540
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. None appears for the petitioner. Learned Addl.Govt. Advocate is present. With the permission of the Court, he went through the revision application and the impugned order.2. Heard learned Addl. Govt. Advocate.3. Petitioner has ventilated his grievance against an order passed and communicated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Rehabilitation Officer (TISCO). Chatrapur vide No. 468 dated XI-D-47/02. 31.7.2002. The petitioner filed the Civil Revision within 90 days from the date of receipt of that letter under a bona fide impression that period of limitation will be counted from that date. Petitioner has thus prayi'd to condone the delay of 16 days in preferring this Civil Revision.. Under the given facts and circumstances, delay of 16 days is condoned and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Misc. Case No. 139 of 2003) is accordingly allowed.4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection for disposal of the Civil Revision. It app...
Basu Harijan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT477; 2003CriLJ2270
M. Papanna, J.1. Impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge,' Jeypore passed in S.C. No. 70 of 1991 convicting the accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') under Sections 302/307/449 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for five years and rigorous imprisonment for four years respectively with direction to run the sentences concurrently is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal preferred from Jail.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.4. 1991 at about 1 P.M. appellant killed wife of the informant (P.W. 1). He also injured his nephew Rajendra Kumar Bag (P.W. 2) by means of a knife. On the date of occurrence, while the informant was returning to his house from Jhaliaguda he came to know about the occurrence. On reaching his house, he found his wife (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') lying dead with bleeding injuries on her person. He also found his nephew lying with bleeding inju...
Smt. Kamini Bala Patra Vs. Gourahari Patra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ori161; 2003(I)OLR500
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.2. This civil revision is directed against judgment delivered on 12-8-2002 by learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Balasore in Misc. Appeal No. 107 of 2000.3. After service of notice, the opposite party members have not appeared to contest the case.4. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 758 of 2000-I of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division). Balasore. The disputed property, as per the description in Schedule A of the plaint, is Plot No. 3105 under M. S. Khata No. 58 corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 2051 under Sabik Khata No. 468, measuring an area of Ac. O. 68 decimals. Plaintiff has claimed that property on the basis of three registered sale deeds and she has stated that she has purchased that land out of her 'Stridhan' property, and the defendants who are her in-laws (being the brother and other agents of her husband) have unreasonably started disputing to her title and possession. Accordingly, she filed the suit, inter ...
Mahanta @ Adhikari Krushna Chandra Das Vs. State of Orissa, Represente ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT328
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in Misc. Case No. 45 of 1999 in allowing application under Order9, Rule 13, CPC is under challenge by the petitioner in this civil revision.2. On 5.1.1994 petitioner filed Miser. Case No, 1 of 1994 in the Court of District Judge, Puri for grant of Letter of Administration by presenting an application under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short, 'the Act'). Petitioner was directed to give valuation statement and the Collector was noticed to have his say in the matter. The valuation statement was accepted without any objection and thereafter the case was transferred to the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri and registered as Misc. Case No. 28/1 of 1996/ 1994. Duty Money was paid by the petitioner, citation was issued and ultimately from 4.4.1997 that case was adjourned to 25.4.1997 for hearing, but on the application of the petitioner the case was advanced and heard ex parte on 8.4.1997. Ther...
Smt. Prativa Muduli and anr. Vs. Nina Alias Ratnamanjari Bal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3233
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-1-2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Crl. Revision No. 2/2002 directing the Executive Magistrate to convert the proceeding to one Under Section 145, Cr. P.C. and conduct an enquiry with regard to possession over a drain by either of the parties to the proceeding with some further directions with regard to repair of the drain. As it appears from the record, the dispute arose between the parties when the opp. party after construction of a two storied building in the year, 2002 tried to discharge foul water through fibre pipes on the southern side of her boundary wall to the land of the petitioners and also tried to choke the flow of the water in the drain belonging to the petitioners as a result of which the petitioners were forced to divert their drain water to the western side of their house constructing another drain. When the opposite parties tried to release the foul water from ...
Priyabrata Sukla Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2787
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Whether the owner of a vehicle seized by police in course of investigation is entitled to interim release of the same, and if so, under what circumstances is the question which needs determination in the present case.2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an Ambassador car bearing registration number OR-02-M-7954. The said vehicle was engaged as a Taxi for being used on hire. One Basudev Ray was the driver of the vehicle. On 25-4-2002 at about 3 p.m. when the Vehicle was parked at Paradip Taxi Stand awaiting customers, some persons approached the driver for hiring the same. It was disclosed by them that they wanted to go to Puri to attend a marriage ceremony. Thereafter the vehicle was seized on 27-4-2002 by the OIC of Himapara P. S. in connection with Himapara P. S. case No. 69 of 2002 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 399 and 402, IPC, which was subsequently converted to G. R. case No. 277/02 of the court of the J.M.F.C., Nimapara. Coming to...
Sano Murmu and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)16; 95(2003)CLT495; 2003CriLJ2365
M. Papanna, J. 1. Impugned Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj (Baripada) passed in S.T. No. 112 of 1991 convicting the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for ten years is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal from Jail. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 21.5.1991, victim Manka Hansda went to village Baghiatanger (Chunusahi) to attend marriage ceremony of daughter of one Ram Chandra Majhi. She took part in the tribal dance in the said ceremony. When darkness set-in she was returning home alone from the said dange. On the way, the accused persons (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') caught hold of her. They dragged her towards Chununala. When she resisted and cried for help, they gagged her mouth with a towel. They tied her hands and carried her to a lonely land beyond Chununala. They laid her on the ground. Then one after another they committed rape on her. Thereafter they carried her to a place surrounded...
Shri Shyamsundar Mishra Vs. Shri Lokanath Mishra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR497
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.This Civil Revision stands disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing learned counsel for both the parties.2. Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 326 of 1989 of the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri is the petitioner whereas defendant No. 4 in that suit is the opposite party. It is not disputed at. the Bar that plaintiff has instituted the said suit, inter alia, praying for the relief of permanent injunction. His claim is based on a case of joint possession of the suit premises with his brother who is Defendant No. 3. According to the further case of the plaintiff the suit premises is a part of the dwelling premises of the family and after suffering from leprosy the Defendant No. 3 having abandoned that premises and living outside and thereby leaving the whole area including the disputed area in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff and his family members. Defendant No. 4 has purchased the disputed property from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 n...
Ranjit Alias Rajat Kumar Das and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(II)OLR65
B.P. Das, J.1. This application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 5.2.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrak, in G.R.Case No. 154 of 2001 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners Under Sections 341/323/294/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C in short) and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 (hereinafter called the 'Act').2. The petitioners in the aforesaid G.R.case filed an application to recall the order taking cognizance against them mainly on the ground that the investigation of the case had not been done in accordance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 ('the Rules' in short). The learned S.D.J.M. by the impugned order has rejected the said application with the following observations :'....... On pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »