Orissa Court October 2004 Judgments
Orissa Association for the Blind and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-16-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT716; [2005(104)FLR516]
B.P. Das, J.1. Orissa Association for the 'Blind (hereinafter called 'the Association') represented through its General Secretary Shri Binod Bihari Sahoo and two of its members, claiming to be espousing the cause of blind persons, have filed this writ application challenging the action of the opp. parties, i.e.. the State and its officials, in not considering the blind candidates for their engagement as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks (shortly 'S.S.S.') in primary and upper primary schools in the State under the reservation meant for them in accordance with the instructions/resolutions issued by the State Government. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opp. parties to give appointment to the trained/untrained blind candidates as per the list, Annexure-2 and similar other candidates as SSS relaxing C.T./B.Ed. training qualification under 1% reservation quota. It is stated that the Association is registered under the Societies Registrat...
Tag this Judgment!Jeypore Evangelical Lutheran Church and ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar Bagh a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ori47; 99(2005)CLT259
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 11, 13 and 14 in Title Suit No. 4 of 2002 pending before the Learned Civil Judge (SD), Jeypore have approached this Court assailing the Order dated 9.8.2004 (Annexure-5) passed by the District Judge-, Koraput, Jeypore in FAO No. 8 of 2002 reversing the Order dated 17.12.2002 (Annexure-4) passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Jeypore in MJC No. 2 of 2002 filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in aforesaid Title Suit No. 4 of 2002.2. The aforesaid Title Suit has been filed by Opp. Parties 1 to 5 as plaintiffs with the prayer to pass a decree in their favour and against the defendants, i.e. :(a) to hold that there was no election for electing any of the office-bearers in the hierarchy of Defendant No. 1, Church Council;(b) to hold that Defendant Nos. 2 to 17 are self-styled office- bearers;(c) to direct Defendant No. 18 to chalk out appropriate measures to control the administration of Defendant No. 1 Society at Jeypore; and(d) t...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer (Elect.), Electrical Store Divn. Gridco and ors. Vs ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-16-2004
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT93; [2005(104)FLR947]
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Executive Engineer, Jeypore Electrical Division, Jeypore, Koraput and others have filed these Writ Applications invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore on the applications filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court by its order Annexure-1 respectively directed the Orissa State Electricity Board to compute the pension of the petitioners before the said Court who are erstwhile employees of the Board and/or their successors in interest, as per the provisions of the Orissa State Electricity Board Employee's Pension Regulation, 1992 (In short '1992 Regulation') read with the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977 and pay the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the said order, failing which the petitioners would be at liberty to file fresh applications under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act fo...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ghanakeshi Sahu Vs. Director, Elementary Education and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-16-2004
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT27; [2005(104)FLR952]
B.P. Das, J.1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Application with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to engage her as a Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak (in short 'S.S.S.') under Hindol Education District in pursuance of the advertisement issued by Opp. Party No. 1, vide Annexure-1 and the selection made thereto by the Selection Committee under the notification issued under Annexure-4.2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was a Matric C.T. and has subsequently acquired +2 qualification. She being a hearing impaired person was declared to be Physically Handicapped with 50% disability as per the certificate, Annexure-2. She also belongs to Socially and Economically Backward Class ('SEBC in short). Pursuant to the advertisement issued by Opp. Party No. 1 for engagement of S.S.Ss. in different education districts of the State (Annexure-1) the petitioner applied for engagement as S.S.S. under Hindol Education District. As per the selection made by Opp. Party No. 2 her name w...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Utkal Flour Mills (Rourkela) Pvt ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT775; [2005]128CompCas23(Orissa)
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, J.1. This is an application filed under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 in Company Petition No. 56 of 2003 with a prayer to the Court to direct that an immediate inventory be made of the stock, goods in process, finished goods, books of account, cash books, cash in hand and Bank account in the premises of Utkal Flour Mills (Rourkela) Pvt. Ltd. (Opp. Party No. 1-company) by a team, preferably consisting of Shri Sachikanta Routrary along with a Chartered Accountant and an Advocate of his choice.2. In Company Petition No. 56 of 2003 the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was the majority share-holder of the Opp. Party No. 1-company. The Opp. Party No. 2 the Managing Director of Opp. Party No. 1-company and Opp. Party No. 3-a Director of Opp. Party No. 1-company have increased the authorised share capital of the company from 2.5 crores to 3 crores allegedly at the EGM of the company on 14.8.2003 without any notice to the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Harekrishna Das Vs. Chairman, Paradeep Port Trust and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT43; [2005(104)FLR956]
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Marine Engineering Division, Paradeep Port Trust has filed this Writ Application challenging the legality of the notice of superannuation dated 16.6.2002 (Annexure-7) and has further prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to allow him to continue in his post till 30th June, 2006 on the basis of date of birth entered in his Service Book.2. The case of the petitioner is that he had applied for appointment against the post of Overseer in Paradeep Port Trust through Employment Exchange. In January, 1972 he was called to attend an interview for the post of Overseer (Electrical) and was also instructed in the said letter to produce all documents in original in support of actual age, qualification and experience along with mark sheets at the time of interview. The interview was held on 1.2.1972 and the petitioner was selected and joined as Overseer (Electrical) on 12.5.1972. According to the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Lata Kumari Bhol Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT125
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of mandamus quashing the Order/letter dated 30.5.1996 vide Annexure-6 and to direct the Opp. Parties 1 and 2 to approve her against the first post of Lecturer in Oriya as decided by the Governing Body vide Annexure-5 and to release the Grant-in-aid in her favour for the same post.2. As per her case, Opp. Party No. 3 established a College in the year 1984 in the name of Udala Womens' College which was subsequently re-named as Indira Gandhi Mahila Mahavidyalaya. The College got recognition in the year 1988 by the Educational Authorities and got affiliation by the Council of Higher Secondary Education for the Session 1987-88. Though the College was eligible to receive the grant-in-aid with effect from 1991-92 academic session as per the Grant-in-aid Order principle of the State Government, it has not received the same as yet. As such, the said College which is a private recognized institution within the meaning of Section 3(p) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Promod Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT298
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner, a Super Class contractor, has filed this Writ Application for the following reliefs :(1) To scrutinize the relevant documents and set aside the order selecting the Tender bid of the Opp. Party No. 5 vide Annexure-4 including the decision, agreement and the work order issued in favour of the Opp. Party No. 5; and(2) Direct the Opp. Parties No. 1 to 4 consider and accept the tender bid of the petitioner and issue work order in his favour for execution of the work.2. Case of the petitioner is that he started his career as D Class contractor in the year 1971 and has upgraded up to a Super Class contractor since last four years. According to the petitioner, he has executed various contract works including construction of road, buildings and canals of various departments of the State Government to the satisfaction of the said department. Pursuant to tender call notice issued by the Opp. Party No. 2 and published in daily 'The Dharitri' on 21.3.2004 for exec...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya Narayan Mahasupakar Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ori10; 99(2005)CLT106; 2005(99)CTLJ106(Ori)
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application assails Annexure-1, a notice issued by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar calling for applications for settlement of a sand quarry as well as the decision of the opposite parties in settling the sand quarry in favour of the opposite party No. 5.2. The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement was published in daily 'The Samaj' and 'The Dhariti' on 1-2-2004 for auction of certain sand sources including the present quarry. Pursuant to such advertisement, three applications were filed including that of the petitioner, but opposite party No. 5 never participated in the said auction. The price offered by the petitioner was the highest, but the upset price fixed by the Tahasildar being much more than the highest price offered by the petitioner, the said auction notice was cancelled. Similarly, at subsequent stages two more auctions were held but no one could match the upset price fixed by the Tahasildar. After three attempts the autho...
Tag this Judgment!Para Biswal Vs. Janjali Khan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ori7; 99(2005)CLT48
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This case raises a very pertinent question of law. The trial Court rejected the evidence filed by one of the witnesses adduced through affidavit in consonance with Order 18, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and directed the said witness to furnish his evidence on affidavit afresh. The question is as to whether the Trial Court has such power.2. For appreciating the said point it would be necessary to have a bird's eye view at the background.Title Suit No. 122 of 1997 has been filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kujanga by the petitioner, as plaintiff. The said suit is one for declaration of the plaintiff's title and for restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. After commencement of the trial, the plaintiff adduced evidence of three witnesses being P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by way of affidavit as contemplated under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Defendant-opposite parties filed an objection to the evide...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »