Orissa Court August 2003 Judgments
The Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and anr. Vs. Utk ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ori63; 2004(3)ARBLR313(Orissa)
A.S. Naidu, J.1. An application filed by M/s. Utkal Moulders Ltd. (respondent) under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') having been allowed by the District Judge, Khurda in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 479 of 2002, the appellants have approached the portals of this Court under Section 37 of the said Act.2. Appellant No. 1, Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Limited (IDCOL) is a Company owned by the Government of Orissa. Appellant No. 2, IDCOL Kalinga Iron Works Limited is a subsidiary Company of appellant No. 1, and is engaged in production of Pig Iron. 'Coke' is an essential ingredient for production of pig iron. To ensure sufficient and effective supply of 'Coke' it was felt necessary to make permanent arrangement by setting up a Coke Oven Plant within the premises of appellant No. 2. Respondent-Company approached and gave a proposal for setting up a manufacturing plant within the premises of appellant No. 2 and an a...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu Prasad Das Vs. Election Officer-cum-block Development Officer a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT745
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner and opposite party No. 3 contested for the post of Chairman of Rairakhol Panchayat Samiti. Opposite party No. 3 was elected as Chairman of Rairakhol Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner presented Election Misc. Case No. 51/2002 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur under Sections 44-A and 44-B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Opposite party No. 3 filed an application before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur contending that the election petition was not maintainable as the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory provision of Section 44-B of the Act while presenting the election petition inasmuch as the petitioner has not made the security deposit along with the ejection petition within the time prescribed under Section 44-B of the Act and as the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 were not the candidates from the same area for the post of Member, Panchay...
Tag this Judgment!Sunamani Bewa and ors. Vs. Brajabandhu Patnaik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT506
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. Defendants 2, 3, 4 and 12 are the petitioners in the present Civil Revision against the order of the learned District. Judge, Puri in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1992 rejecting the petitioners' application for an order declaring that the suit as well as the appeal abates in view of Section 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972.2. The short facts giving rise to the present case is that the opp. parties 1 to 19 in their representative capacity as villagers of the suit village, filed a suit, O.S. No. 23/39 of 88/83-I in the Court of the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Puri for declaration of their title over the suit tank and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The learned trial Court framed as many as 12 issues and decreed the suit as against which the petitioners filed Title Appeal No. 25 of 1992 before the learned District Judge, Puri.3. During the pendency of th...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanta Kumar SwaIn Vs. Satrughna SwaIn and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC166; 96(2003)CLT513
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.7.1998 passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 275 of 1990, the claimant-petitioner before the Tribunal below has filed this appeal.2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that on 10.1.1990 at about 9.15 a.m. when the appellant was standing on the left flank of Cuttack-Machhagaon road near Jagatsinghpur, the offending truck bearing registration No. OSC 3865 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from his back side and dashed against him, as a result of which his right foot was crushed under the wheels causing him seriously injured. He was removed to Jagatsinghpur Government Hospital and thereafter to the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack for treatment, After his treatment, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal below for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-.3. During the course of hearing, the owner-respondent No. 1 was set ex parte and respondent No. 2-Insurance Company only co...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Mayadhar Behera Vs. Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT740
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.1.2002 of the 1st Adhoc Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar confirming the order dated 28.6.2001 of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No. 190 of 2001 dismissing the prayer, of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction restraining the opp. parties from eviction.2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case is that the suit land was Anabadi land of which Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije at Bhubaneswar was the ex intermediary. The ex-intermediary interest vested with the State Government since 18,3.1974, but prior to such vesting of intermediary estate, in the year 1964, the opp. party had inducted Kulamani Behera as a tenant. Said Kulamani possessed the suit land by paying rent to the deity and the Deity had granted ownership certificate in favour of him. After the death of Kulamani, his son, who is the present petitioner, is the owner in possession of the suit land and is possess...
Tag this Judgment!Nalco and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT592
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. In all these three petitions, the petitioners assail the order dated 1.12.1994 of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 211 of the Companies Act and issuing process.2. The petitioners are, the National Aluminium Company Limited, a Government of India undertaking, its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the Company Secretary and the present Chairman-cum-Managing Director.3. The order of cognizance is challenged mainly on the ground of lack of sanction against the petitioners, the Managing Director-cum-Chairman and the Company Secretary and on the ground of limitation. Sri I. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners 2 and 4 having been appointed by the President of India initially as Directors and then, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, initiation of a criminal proceeding as against them without prior sanction of the appropriate authority as required under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Sethi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT645; 2004CriLJ1858
P. K. Mohanty J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. Case No. 123/31 of 1999 holding that the petitioner is not a juvenile in terms of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela.2. The case in nut-shell is that the petitioner along with another was accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 376(2)(g) & (f)/634 of the Indian Penal Code on 4.1.1999. He was arrested and produced before the learned S.D.J.M. Rourkela on 5.1.1999 in G. R. Case No. 3 of 1999. A prayer was made on 6.5.1999 before the learned Magistrate to send the petitioner to the juvenile jail, since he was a juvenile as on the date. Charge-sheet was submitted on 20.5.1999 under the aforesaid Sections and the case was committed to the Court of Session to be tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela. A petition appears to have been filed on ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ganpati Prasad Verma Vs. Brundaban Biswal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ori19
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. These two appeals having arising out of a common judgment and common question of law and fact being involved, on the prayer and consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up and disposed of by this common judgment.Misc. Appeal No. 412 of 2000 is by the owner of the offending scooter against the award whereas Misc. Appeal No. 473 of 2000 is by the claimant to set aside the award.2. The claimant, appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 473 of 2000 filed a Misc. Case before the 2nd M.A.C.T. (S.D.) Berhampur for compensation of a sum of s. 1,20,000/- for having sustained injuries in course of the accident caused by the respondent-appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 412 of 2000. Short facts are that the claimant was proceeding towards Berhampur University from Mandiapalli by riding a cycle slowly on the left side of the road. The respondent who was the professor of Zoology of Berhampur University was coming from University side towards Fishery College by driving his s...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanashyam Jena Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4794
ORDERP.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner assails the order dated 22-9-1995 passed in G.R. Case No. 313 of 1991 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rampur taking cognizance against the petitioner and some others under Sections 147, 452, 364, 302, 201, 120-B/149, IPC and issuing process for appearance on the basis of the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer in Dunguripali P.S. Case No. 126 of 1991 and the order dated 24-2-1996 rejecting the petitioner's application to recall the order of cognizance.2. The short fact of the petitioner's case is that he had earlier moved this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1119 of 1992 against the order of cognizance and this Court by order dated 24-11-1992 had quashed the cognizance holding that there are no sufficient material on record for a finding that a prima facie case showing criminal conspiracy amongst the applicant and his follower to kill both or any one of the deceased persons. As against the said order, the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Alok Kumar Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ori134
ORDER1. This is a public interest petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Shri Alok Kumar Das, a resident of Jhanjirmangala, Cuttack, who claims to be a socially spirited man.2. The brief facts are that by an advertisement published in the Oriya daily newspaper in August, 2002, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, 'the B.S.N.L.') invited sealed tenders from reputed organizations having at least two years experience in the sale of fast moving consumer goods (F.M.C.G.) items, electrical goods, I.T. products, computer hardware for appointment of dealers (for post-paid service) on Telecom District basis and distributors (for pre-paid service) on Telephone connection basis for B.S.N.L.'s Cellular Mobile Service. In response to the said advertisement, sixteen organizations submitted tenders for Bolangir Bhawanipatna territory. The tenders of fifteen organizations were rejected by the Tender Evaluation Committee nominated by the B.S.N.L. on the ground that they did not sat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »