Orissa Court September 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.
Pokani Alias Prakashini Mohapatra and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ689
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack convicting the appellants for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code.As it appears from the record, the appellants and one Pitabas Maharana faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 498-A/304-B read with Section 302/34 of the Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence on record acquitted Pitabas Maharana from the charges and convicted the appellants for commission of offences as aforesaid.2. Case of the prosecution is that the deceased Amani Moharana had married to accused Pitabas Moharana, son of appellants 2 and 3 five years prior to the date of occurrence. It is alleged that after marriage deceased was being assaulted by the accused person and on the date of occurrence at about 7 P.M. in the evening the informant heard that the deceased has got burn injuries and when he went to t...
Ramesh Chandra Rout Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT39
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the sale notice No. 282 dated 25.3.2003 issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Angul for manufacture and sale of O.S. Liquor in the premises mentioned in the district of Angul in Annexure-2 to the sale notice. The contention of the petitioner is that under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (for short, 'the Act') public notice will have to be given of the intention to grant any exclusive privilege under Sub-section (1) of Section 22 inviting objections from persons residing within the area affected and such objections are to be considered by the authorities. The manner in which such public notice is to be given inviting objection has been specified in rule 3 of the Orissa Excise Exclusive Privilege Rules, 1970 and Form-A appended to the Sub-rule (3) of the Rules, 1970. In this case, no such public notice has been give...
Makaradhwaja Dharua Vs. Naba Bhoi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT796
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment passed on 26. 9. 1997 by the Additional District Judge, Bolangir in Misc. Judicial Appeal No. 14/16 of 1995-96.2. Petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No. 81/64 of 1984 of the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Loisinga. That suit had been posted to 5.10.1994 for filing of written statement. Defendant did not take any step and therefore, he was set ex parte. On 24.10. 1994 that suit was heard ex parte and judgment was delivered on 27.10.1994 granting an ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff/ opp. party members. Defendant filed application under Order 9, Rule 13; of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the Code'), and that was registered as M.J.C. No. 33 of 1994. After hearing the parties, learned Civil Judge on 31.7.1995 rejected the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. As against that, petitioner preferred the above noted appeal, which was heard and disposed of by learned Add...
Sitaram @ Mahendra Ghosh and ors. Vs. Sri Antaryami Mohapatra and 18 o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT762; 2003(II)OLR409
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. By this common judgment all the aforesaid Civil Revisions are considered relating to maintainability in view of the amendment of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the Code'), which came into force by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from Ist July, 2002. Before considering the legal issue, orders which are impugned in each of the revision petitions are briefly noted as follows :C.R.P. No. 89 of 2002The respondent in Munsif Appeal No. 95 of 1999 pending in the Court of District Judge, Balasore has preferred this revision challenging to the order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the District Judge in allowing the application for substitution filed by the appellant and rejecting the application for abatement filed by the respondent.C.R.P. No. 107 of 2002Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 341 of 1996 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar, has preferred this revision challenging to the order of addition of party by substituting the petitioners as...
Girija Shankar Panda Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT125
P. K. Mohanty, J. 1. The petitioner seeks for a declaration that he is entitled to continue in service till he reaches 60 years of age and as such entitled to continue upto 31.12.2000 in view of the policy decision of the Government of India.2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case is that he was working as a Director (Projects and Technology) in the National Aluminium Company Ltd. (Opp. Party No. 3), having been appointed by the Government of India by order dated 28.2.1995, a copy of which is Annexure-1. In terms of Annexure-1, the petitioner was to superannuate from service on attaining 58 years of age as on 31.12.1998 in accordance with the prevailing service Rules. The terms and conditions of service of the petitioner were stipulated under Annexure-2. The Government of India decided to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years for all Government servants and also in respect of Board Level appointees of the Central Public Sector Undertaking Enterprises which includes O...
Chief Accounts Officer, Telecom District and anr. Vs. Satyananda Jena
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ori47; 97(2004)CLT534
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Opposite parties in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2000 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Angul have preferred this civil revision as against an order of mandatory injunction granted by the said Court and confirmed by learned Addl. District Judge, Angul on 9-5-2000 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 2000.2. Hearing of the case was completed and judgment was reserved on 24-1-2002. By this date Act 46 of 1999 which amended the provision in Section 115, C.P.C. had not come into force. Therefore, parties to the dispute did not raise any issue on the question of maintainability of the civil revision. Thus, this Court does not consider that aspect at present.3. Opposite party in this revision is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 17 of 2000 claiming the relief of permanent injunction with a direction to the defendants i.e. the petitioners in this revision, to not to disconnect his telephone line of the Telephone Number 32216 of Angul. It is stated In the plaint that there...
Sri Purushottam Rana Vs. Kanakalata Rana and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT729
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 29 of 1996 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Keonjhar has preferred this Civil Revision on rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the Code').2. Though it is of less relevancy but the facts and circumstances involved in this case are noted in brief.Plaintiff filed the suit for partition, inter alia, claiming for half share of the joint family property and intended that the sale transactions made by his father and Karta of the family in favour of Defendants 14 to 32 be declared null and void and inoperative as against his half interest. A fixed Court-fee was paid. Title Suit was taken up for hearing and after recording evidence and hearing argument when the suit was posted for judgment learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) entertained a doubt regarding correctness of valuation made and the Court-fee paid on the plaint. In that context, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) prov...
Sisupala Duria and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1007
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Petitioners pray to quash the order dated 2-4-2002 passed by learned S. D. J. M., Dharmagarh in G.R. Case No. 546 of 2001. By that order learned S.D.J.M. has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 307/34, I.P.C. Petitioners as the accused persons have claimed for quashing of the proceeding on the ground of absence of a prima facie case for the said offence. It has also been stated in the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') that G.R. Case No. 546 of 2001 is a counter case to G.R. Case No. 545 of 2001 initiated at the instance of the accused/petitioners. It has also been stated in the application under Section 482 of the Code that the allegation in the F.I.R. and, the statements of the witnesses do not make out a prima facie case for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C.2. The injured Manjit Duria though not a party to this proceeding, on 17-1-2003 entered appearance and filed an affidavit rel...
Rajkumari Panigrahi and Etc. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1004
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. All the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Cases are as against rejection of the applications under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, 'the Code') on 22-12-2001 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur in connection with Sambalpur Vig. G.R. Case Nos. 61 and 64 of 2001. Maheswar Kar, petitioner in CRMC No. 3217 of 2002 is the accused in the said Vig. G.R. Case. Rajkumari Panigrahi, petitioner in CRMC No. 927 of 2002 is his sister-in-law being his wife's younger sister. She is a married woman. Snehaprabha Panigrahi, petitioner in CRMC No. 928 of 2002 is the mother-in-law of the accused. She is a pensioner. Abharani Panigrahi, petitioner in CRMC No. 3232 of 2002 is the wife of the accused and Debasis Panigrahi, petitioner in CRMC No. 3233 of 2002 is the brother-in-law of the accused, being his wife's younger brother.2. All the aforesaid Crl. Misc. Cases were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order.3. Vigilance Department conducte...
Thabir Charan Mishra Vs. Member, State Co-operative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT421; 2003(II)OLR436
ORDER1. The petitioner who claims to have been elected as President of the Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Rourkela challenges the order dated 8.8.2003 passed by the Member, Co-operative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Case No. MC-156/03(ED-81/03) rejecting his application for vacating interim order passed by the Tribunal on 28.7.2003.2. From the record it appears that one Jugal Kishore Guru filed Case No. CTED-79/2003 before the Member, Cooperative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar raising an election dispute with a prayer to set aside/quash election notice dated 12.5.2003, election result dated 13.7.2003 as well as notice dated 15.7.2003 for election of the President with a further prayer to hold denovo election. The Tribunal though entertained the application and admitted the dispute case, rejected prayer for interim orders on the ground that the election process to the office of the President has already been started and it cannot be held up as per Section 28-B of the Orissa Co-operative Societies A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »