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.
Rev. Satya Ranjan Majhi and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ori163; 2003(I)OLR404
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C. J.1. This writ petition is filed by two gentlemen said to be on behalf of the Christian Community. They seek to challenge the constitutional validity and legality of the provisions in Section 2 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 and Rules 4 and 5 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Rules, 1989 and the Rules inserted as Rules 2 and 3 by the Orissa Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Rules, 1999.2. The Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was enacted by the State Legislature under Entry I. List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The validity of that enactment and the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact that law came to be challenged before this Court. This Court, by the decision in Mrs. Yulitha Hyde v. State of Orissa, AIR 1973 Orissa 116, held that the enactment was outside the legislative competence of the State Legislature and Entry 1 in List II or List III did not authorise t...
Gridco of Orissa Limited Vs. Electrical Manufacturing Company Limited ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR421
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This is an application filed by. Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Gridco) under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On 9.10.1998. Gridco entered into a contract with the Electrical Manufacturing Company Limited, the opposite party herein, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Contractor'), in connection with the drawing of a 132 KV overhead line. A formal contract was entered into between the parties. In the course of the work, certain disputes arose between Gridco and the Contractor. Clause 50.0 of the Contract provides for settlement of disputes. Clause 50.1 provided for an Adjudicator. Clause 50.1.1 provided that if any dispute of any kind whatsoever arose between the Employer Gridco and the Contractor in connection with or arising out of the contract, the parties were to seek a resolution of such dispute or difference by mutual consultation and failing that, the dispu...
Shree Shree Shree Jagannath Udyog Vs. Chair Person-cum-managing Direct ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ori195; 95(2003)CLT799
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern owning a small scale industrial unit for manufacture of tractor trailers and agricultural implements at the Industrial Estate at Madhupatna, Cuttack. The Industrial Unit of the petitioner is registered with the Export promotion Organization of the State of Orissa (for shot, 'the E.P.M.'). The Industrial Policy, 1996 of the Government of Orissa provided for purchase of store items by Government Departments and agencies under the control of the State Government from industries located inside the State. Such purchases could be made from (i) exclusive list, (ii) rate contract holders and (iii) through open tender. The provision in the Industrial Policy, 199G relating to purchase from exclusive list read as follows :'A list of store items reserved for exclusive purchase from industries located in the State may be prepared from time to time keeping in view the production capacity of the industries and requirements of State Governm...
Krushna Nayak and ors. Vs. Smt. Panchami Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT736
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Heard. 2. This Civil Revision stand disposed of at the stage of admission on consent of parties after hearing argument from both the sides. 3. Petitioners are the defendants and the opposite party are the plaintiffs in T. S. No. 136 of 2001 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Berhampur. Admittedly, the suit property belongs to the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1. The other defendants are the son's of defendant No. 1. It is also the admitted fact that defendant No. 1 went on adoption to the family of one Mahakala Nayak. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the suit properties is the property belonging to the father of the plaintiffs and the natural father of defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs apprehending dispossession at the instance of defendant No. 1 and his sons filed a suit for permanent injunction and also filed application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, CPC. being registered as M. J. C. No. 73 of 2001. They prayed for tempo...
Shri Durga Prasad Panda Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR403
ORDER1. Heard Mr. M. K. Das, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mr. Nanda, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate forthe State.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an unemployedGraduate and he applied for appointment as a P.D.S. retailerin Ward No. V in the vacant place of one Shri P. K. Sahoo,P.D.S. Dealer of Ward No. V. who has communicated his willingnessto resign from retailership. Coming to learn this, the petitionersubmitted an application to the Addl. District Magistrate. Cuttackfor appointment as retailer under the Orissa P.D.S. (Control)Order, 2002 in Ward No. V of Cuttack Municipal Corporation.His case has also been recommended by the Inspector of Suppliesfor appointment as P.D.S. retailer in Ward No. V. vide Annexure-4to the writ application. The petitioner had made repeatedrepresentations to the Addl. District Magistrate and the Collector,Cuttack to consider his case for .appointment as P.D.S. retailerfor the aforesaid Ward No. V of Cuttack Municipal Corporation,but his...
Sashi Bhusan Pradhan Vs. Basudha Karna and Three ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR407
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.2. On consent of learned counsel for both the parties this Civil Revision stands disposed of at the stage of admission.3. Petitioner was the sole defendant in T.S. No. 16 of 1998 of the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Boudh and the opposite party members were the plaintiffs. On 22.4.1999 petitioner defaulted in appearance and therefore, after setting him ex parte, the suit was heard ex parte and consequently an ex parte decree was passed on 13.5.1999. On 28.8.1999 petitioner filed application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with the prayer to condone the delay and to set aside the ex parte decree. In support of that cause, petitioner advanced the plea of his illness from 17.4.1999 to 28.9.1999. In proof of that plea, petitioner examined his son- in-law and two more witnesses, out of whom P.W. No. 3 was the doctor who granted certificate of illness and treatment in favour of the petitioner. The medica...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›