Orissa Court June 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.
Raja Kishore Jena Vs. Orissa Administrative Tribunal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(II)OLR301
R.K. Patra, J.1. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 19.5.1999 (Annexure-1) passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 2168 of 1996 (Original Application No. 2733(C) of 1993) denying financial benefit to the petitioner in the cadre of O.A.S. (super-time scale) and O.A.S. (senior grade in super-time scale), he has filed this writ petition.2. Facts leading to filing of aforesaid Original Application No. 2168 of 1996 are necessary to be briefly stated :Petitioner was a Senior Officer of the Orissa Administrative Service (O.A.S.). He had filed writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 2314 of 1982 in this Court for expunction of adverse remarks in his C.C.R. for the periods from 25.11.1977 to 31.7.1978 and 198 1-1982. He had also filed another writ petition bearing OJC No. 829 of 1984 challenging his premature retirement with effect from 15.7.1983. Consequent upon the constitution of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, those writ petitions were transfe...
Biswambhar Adhikari Vs. Prasar Bharati Represented by the Director Gen ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT70; 2003(II)OLR134
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Petitioner while serving as Executive Producer, Doordarshan Kendra, Bhubaneswar was transferred by Deputy Director (Admn.), Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India (opposite party No. 2) as per transfer order Annexure-2. He was transferred to Sambalpur as Station Director of Doordarshan Kendra. Opposite party No. 3 while functioning as Station Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Raipur was transferred to Doordarshan Kendra, Bhubaneswar to function as head of office. That order of transfer was passed on 23.5.2001. 2. Petitioner has ventilated his grievance against that order of transfer mainly on two grounds, viz., (i) that he is five years senior in service to opposite party No. 3 and therefore petitioner should not have been transferred to a category 'B' Centre like Sambalpur and opposite party No. 3 should not have been transferred to a category 'A' Centre like Bhubaneswar in view of the seniority of the petitioner and when petitioner has already served in th...
Syama Ghana Biswal Vs. General Manager, State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT82; (2003)IIILLJ1011Ori
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 569 of 1998 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar. He filed that suit claiming the relief of restraining the defendants i.e. the officials of the State Bank of India from conducting departmental proceeding and to pass a final order in such proceeding till disposal of G.R. Case No. 10 of 1998 pending in the file of J.M.F.C., G. Udayagiri. Along with the plaint petitioner filed application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code) for grant of temporary injunction and that was registered as Misc. Case No. 554 of 1998. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar on 26.10.1998 allowed that application. As against that opposite party No. 3 filed appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code and that was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 100 of 1998 in the Court of District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. On 1.11.2000 that appeal was disposed of vide the impugned judgment...
Smt. Sapa Mahalaxmi Vs. Sapa Lingaraj and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT139
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 125 of 1994 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur. Her application to depute a Survey Knowing Commissioner being rejected by the trial Court, petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 18 of 1996, which is pending in the Court of 2nd Addl. District Judge, Berhampur. As stated by the petitioner, after the death of the original plaintiff, i.e., Sappa Simadri Patra, she was substituted in his place on her application which was allowed by the Court below on 10.3.1997. When the matter stood thus, on 30.4.1997 opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and one Sappa Prakash Rao described as son of Late S. Adinarayanan filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the Code') for their addition in the revision as the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner Late Sappa Simadri Patro. That application was allowed by the 2nd Additional District judge, Berhampur, and as against tha...
Hrushikesh Das and ors. Vs. Shree Shree Brundaban Jew Thakura and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT148
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Five of the defendants of Title Suit No. 135 of 1997-I of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak have preferred this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') challenging the order passed on 4.8.1999 in rejecting the petition in which petitioners had prayed to record the order of abatement of the suit in view of the provisions in the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act').2. There is no dispute by the parties to the pleadings from the plaint noted in the impugned order. It appears from that as well as the certified copy of the plaint drafted in vernacular that plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition claiming 1/4th share from certain portions of the suit scheduled land and in that context they sought to get declaration that sale deeds executed on 5.5.71 and 8.7.61 to be void and also they have claimed for the relief under Section 4 of the Pa...
Kunjabihari Pradhan Vs. Jayanti Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT151
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. The above noted appeal and revision having arisen between the spouses, the husband appearing as the appellant/petitioner and the wife as respondent opposite party respectively in the appeal and the revision. On their consent both the above cases were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment, which shall abide the result in both the Second Appeal and the Civil Revision.2. For the sake of convenience of reference petitioner is described as the husband and the opposite party as the wife.3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 3rd June, 1981. According to the allegations of the husband, the wife deserted and abandoned him with effect from 24.6.1981. In that respect the plea of the wife is that after ill-treatment and cruelty and when she was pregnant her husband on 29.9.1981 left her in her father's house at Bargarh and never came back to take her back. It is the admitted case of both the parties that on 11.5.1982 the wife gave birth ...
Braja Mohan Patra Vs. Ananta Charan Patra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ori209; 96(2003)CLT168
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 41 of 1998 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Parlakhemundi has preferred this Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') as against the order passed on 21.9.1999 by the trial Court. It appears from that order that plaintiff's application under Order 16 Rule 21 of the Code to summon the defendant No. 2 to depose in the case as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff was rejected on the ground that such a practice has been condemned by the Privy Council as per the commentaries in the Indian Evidence Act by Sarkar 13th Edn. page 1395 and 1396.2. It was stated at the bar that plaintiff has brought the suit for partition against his two surviving brothers and the legal representatives of one deceased brother. Along with the relief of partition plaintiff has also claimed for other reliefs, with respect to the suit properties. Defendant No. 2 filed a written statement inter alia advancing p...
Madan Mohan Sahu @ Sahoo Vs. Bijay Kumar Sahoo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT197
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 46 of 2001 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jajpur Road and his youngest son is the sole defendant and opposite party in this revision. The disputed property measures an area of Ac. 0.02 decimals appertaining to C.S. Plot No. 1137 under Khata No. 424 equivalent to M.S. Plot No. 1014 under M. S. Khata No. 546 in Mouza Khamana. That property was purchased by the plaintiff on 17.3.1956 and it is the admitted position on record that the defendant born thereafter. Plaintiff's case of self-acquisition of the suit property was not in dispute by the defendant. When Plaintiff claims exclusive right, title, interest and possession over the suit property the defendant has contested that contention by stating that plaintiff has allowed the joint family consisting of plaintiff, defendant and the eldest son of the plaintiff to enjoy the suit property as part of the joint family property and that in an 'Ekrarnama' execute...
Gopal Chandra Sao and ors., Vs. Chief Engineer and BasIn Manager, Bait ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT315; 2003(II)OLR244
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. In O.J.C. No. 10210 of 2001 altogether nine petitioners, in O.J.G. No. 10941 of 2001, 21 petitioners, in O.J.C. No. 10942 of 2001, 10 petitioners, in O.J.C. No. 12011 of 2001 and in O.J.C. No. 12425 - one petitioner each, in O.J.C. No. 12643 of 2001, fifteen petitioners and in O.J.C. No. 12660 of 2001- five petitioners have claimed for quashing of the order of retrenchment respectively Annexure-6, in O.J.C. Nos. 10210, 10941 and 10942 of 2001 Annexure-1, in O.J.C. No. 12011 of 2001, Annexures 4 and 5, in O.J.C. No. 12425 of 2001, Annexure-4, in O.J.C. No. 12643 of 2001 and Annexure-2 series in O.J.C. No. 12660 of 2001. Except the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 12660 of 2001, the petitioners in rest of the writ applications have claimed themselves as the displaced persons because of constructions of Water Reservoirs by the State Government under Bajtarani, Subarnarekha and Budhabalanga Irrigation Projects. In O.J.C. No. 12660 of 2001, petitioners have challenged the orde...
State Bank of India Represented Through the Chief General Manager and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT323
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Defendants in Money Suit No. 138 of 1996 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela are the petitioners and the plaintiff is the opposite party in this civil revision. An application filed by the petitioners to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code' ) was rejected by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rourkela on 29.9. 1997. That was challenged before this Court by the present petitioners in Civil Revision No. 327 of 1997. On 20.11.1998 that revision was disposed of by this Court directing the court below in the following manner :'I direct that the trial court should consider the maintainability of the suit in the light of provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. If question of maintainability of the suit on any other ground is raised which is dependent upon question of fact, the same has to be decided along with other issues, but if any question of maintainability not dependent upon a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »