Orissa Court April 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.
Land Acquisition Officer-cum-collector Vs. Om Prakash Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT43
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the Land Acquisition. Collector, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, challenging the order dated 23.12.1993 passed by the Subordinate Judge (as it then was), Nawapara, in M.J.C. No. 72 of 1993.2. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of notification under Section 4(i) of the Act, Ac. 18.53 decimals of land appertaining, to different plots under Khata No. 16 of village Ainlajuba in the district of Kalahandi, which belonged to the respondents-claimants, were acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna for the purpose of construction of the Saipala Irrigation Project and compensation of Rs. 33,084.03 paise was given to the respondents-claimants which they received on protest as the award was very much low. Therefore, the reference was made to the learned Subordinate Judge, Nawapara, under Section 18 of the Act.3. In order to prove the...
Satyabhama Puspalak Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT609
ORDERA.K. Patnaik. J.1. Heard Mr. S. N. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. K. Mohanty learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. S. D. Das, learned counsel for the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa. 2. By order dated 28.2.1997, the prescribed Authority-cum-Addl. Director, Higher Education, Orissa withdrew the recognition granted earlier to Kasturba Gandhi Women's College, Manikadeipur, Pipili in the district of Puri. Against the said order, the Secretary of the aforesaid college filed Appeal petition No. (+2) 4 of 2000before the Government of Orissa and the said appeal was allowed with the direction that necessary recognition withdrawn is to be restored and the educational agency was to be allowed to present the candidates in the ensuing Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 2000. Pursuant to the said order allowing the appeal, the prescribed Authority-cum-Additional Director, Higher Education, Orissa issued an order dated 7.11.2000 stating therein that in exer...
Jayadurga Paper Box Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ori173; 2003(I)OLR579
ORDERP.K. Tripathi, J.1. Heard.2. This civil revision stands disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing arguments from both the parties.3. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 272 of 2002-1 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court. Cuttack. -In that suit he has sought, for a declaration that the opposite parties 1 to 3 (defendants in that suit) are liable to revive the industry. In that suit petitioner filed application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') which was registered as Misc. Case No. 306 of 2002. In that application petitioner sought for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the Orissa State Financial Corporation (in short 'O.S.F.C.') i.e., defendants 1 and 2 and the defendant No. 3 i.e., the State Bank of India represented by Branch Manager, Kalyani Nagar Branch not to dispose of the seized property, i.e., machineries and the land with the house standing thereon belongin...
Biswanath Sahu and ors. Vs. Mrs. Tribeni Mohan (Died) by L.Rs. and ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ori189; 2003(I)OLR522
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. Defendants 1/b, 1/c and 1/d are the appellants before this Court against a confirming judgment. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 having expired during pendency of the appeal, three of her legal heirs have been substituted in her place as respondents 1/a, 1/b and 1/c.Plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of her title over the suit property, confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction over the suit land or interfering with her possession in any manner whatsoever.2. Case of the plaintiff is that the suit land originally belonged to one Ratnakar Chhotaray, Gurudeb Chhotaray and Indramani Chhotaray. The original owners for their legal necessity sold the same in favour of one Amulyanath Mitra, father of defendant No. 3 under a registered sale deed dated 11-8-1947 and after such purchase Amulyanath Mitra took possession of the land. While in possess...
Purusottam Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR547
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 23.7.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No. 26 of 1999 rejecting the petition filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the Revenue Inspector, Kelua for the purpose of production of village settlement map. R.O.R. etc.2. From the impugned order, it appears that on 23rd of July, 2002 P.W. 24, who is the I.O. was examined, cross-examined and evidence from the side of the prosecution was closed. On , the said date a petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the Revenue Inspector, Kelua to cause production of the village settlement map of village Gothagam, Khatian and R.O.R. of the lands locally known as Upara Bali and Balibandha etc. of village Gothagam. It further appears that the said petition was filed on the ground that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution...
Lingaraj Oil Industries Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director, Bab ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR550
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in 2(c) C.C. Case No. 139 of 1994 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir and has approached this Court in this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. challenging the order dated 26.9.2001 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to reconsider the order taking cognizance.2. From the record it appears that the Food Inspector, Bolangir took sample of Refined Rice Bran Oil from accused No. 1., M/s. Rambhagat Shyamlal Agrawala, and sent the same to the Public Analyst for analysis. At the time of taking simple the accused No. 1 disclosed to the Food Inspector that in had purchased the oil vide Bill No. 43 dated 2.4.94. The sample sent to the Public analyst indicated adulteration for which the report was submitted after obtaining sanction from the C.D.M.O. for commission of offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner and the other accused. Aft...
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nalco Vs. Pramod Kumar Bisoi and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT63
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. Being aggrieved by a common award dated 5.4.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Angul, in L.A. Misc. Case Nos. 146, 144, 145 and 147 of 1991, the appellant-NALCO Ltd. has preferred these first appeals before this Court. Therefore, this common judgment will govern all the cases.Inspite of issuance of notices, there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents when the matter, was taken up for hearing.2. The facts, in brief, is that admittedly the appellant-NALCO Ltd., by virtue of Government notification published in E.O.G. No. 154 dated 3.2.1982 acquired lands of village Kulad for construction of the NALCO project, Angul. The respondent-claimants are owners in possession of the disputed lands and they received the compensation on protest for which the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Angul.3. During hearing of the case, this Court is appraised of the judg...
Mahendra Mahanta and ors. Vs. Smt. Tarini Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ori180; 96(2003)CLT182
B. Panigrahi, J.1. Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Baripada in Title Suit No. 3 of 1978-I against the judgment and decree passed in a suit for partition have filed this appeal.2. Essential factual matrix leading to this appeal is as follows :The plaintiff-respondents 1 and 2, who are sisters being daughters of late Jayakrushna filed the suit against appellant-defendant No. 1, Mahendra Mohanta, who is their uncle claiming their share in the joint family property. In order to appreciate the facts of the case it is profitable to quote the genealogy placed in the record. GENEALOGY Late Birbal Mohanta _____________________|_______________________ | | | Late Rabi Late Laxmiram Late Lokanath Mohanta Mohanta = Jashoda | | | Dinabandhu | | =Kishori Bewa | | (D.6) | | | | | ___|______________ | | | | | |Sulochana Dei Hunda | | (D.7) (D.8) | | _____________|_______________ | | | | Late Prasad Late Sukura | =Janaki =Chudamoni | (D.9) (D.10) | __________|_______...
Rasid Khan, (Dead) and After Him Khairan Bibi and ors. Vs. Abdul Gaffa ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(I)OLR559
B. Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated decree passed by the District Judge, Balasore dated 3.9.1986 and 10.9.1986 respectively in S.J.A. Appeal No. 48 of 1984-1 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Bhadrak in T.S. No. 146 of 1978-1 decreeing preliminarily the plaintiff's suit for partition.2. The respondent Nos. 1 and .2 filed a suit being Title Suit No. 146 of 1978-1 for partition of the suit schedule land comprising of two plots, i.e. C. S. Plot No. 994 under khata No. 229 with an area of AO. 173 decimals, a tank and C.S. Plot No. 1000 under Khata No. 475 with an area of A0.050 decimals, a homestead. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Paran Khan had three sons, namely, Karim Khan, Umed Khan and Dhuma Khan each having l/3rd share. It is further stated that Karim during his life time sold his interest in the suit properties to Mir Kefayat under two sale deeds dated 28.5.1923 and 6.4.1923. The defendants 1 to 4 i....
Prasanna Kumar Panda Vs. Central Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT331
B. Panigrahi, J.1. The writ petitioner has challenged the whimsical, arbitrary and illegal action alleged to have been meted out by the opp. parties.2. Petitioner joined in service as Clerk 'A' under the Orissa State Electricity Board. Immediately after formation of CESCO, the service of the petitioner was transferred to their control and he was treated to be an employee of CESCO for all purposes. It is alleged that while the petitioner was functioning as cashier in the office of Executive Engineer Electrical Division No. I, Kendrapara, there was a short fall of an amount of Rs. 67,219,35 P. from the cash. Therefore, a report was lodged in Kendrapara Police Station against the petitioner under Section 409, IPC, which was registered as G.R. Case No. 1219 of 1992. However, the case ended in acquittal of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority appears to have simultaneously initiated a departmental proceeding for negligence in duty. The departmental proceeding could not be completed in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »