Orissa Court November 2004 Judgments
David Ledison Alias Adison Lima and ors. Vs. Addl. District Magistrate ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-16-2004
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT570
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The order of eviction passed by the competent authorities under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (Regulation 2 of 1956) is assailed in this Writ Petition.2. All the petitioners are non-scheduled tribe persons. They are alleged to be in possession of parcels of land belonging to Opp. Party No. 4 who is admittedly a tribal person. On the basis of an application filed by the said opposite party, the Sub-Collector, Gunupur, the Officer-on-Special Duty under the Regulation, instituted a proceeding under Section 3(A) of Regulation 2 of 1956. The plea of the petitioners in the said case was that they were in occupation of the disputed lands for a number of years and had acquired right, title and interest over the same. They had also raised certain constructions over the same.The Sub-Collector, Gunupur after hearing the parties by order dated 7th November, 2002 held the possession to be unauthorized and illegal. H...
Tag this Judgment!Dilu Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ori89; 99(2005)CLT666; 2005(I)OLR60
Pradip Mohanty, J. 1. All these Writ Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed challenging the notification dated 14.10.1999 issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since the question of law involved in all these Writ Applications is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The State Government has issued a notification dated 14.10.1999 prohibiting sale of tickets of all lotteries organised, conducted or promoted by other States within the State of Orissa. This notification has been issued in exercise of the power under Section 5 of the Act which is under challenge. The copy of the said notification has been annexed as Annexure-2 to W.P.(C) No. 2893 of 2004. Prayer has also been made to declare Section 5 of the Act as inter vires. The State Government has filed its counter supporting the notification.3. Mr. B...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subhra Mohanty an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-11-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC418; 2006ACJ501; 99(2005)CLT7
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th August, 2003 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 716 of 2001 dismissing the appeal.2. The respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased Saroj Kumar Mohanty who died in a road accident on 28th February, 2000. As it appears from the record on the said date at about 10.00 P.M. in the night while the deceased Saroj Kumar Mohanty was proceeding in his scooter along with his cousin brother Basanta Kumar Mohanty to Railway Station, a Taxi bearing Registration No. OR- 02A-8144 came in a high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and fled away from the spot. Because of the said accident, both the riders received severe injuries in brain and were shifted to Capital Hospital. Though the pillion rider could survive, the deceased Saroj Kumar Mohanty succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was working as Auditor in the Scale-II in Punjab Nation...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Agrawal Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ori64
A.K. Parichha, J.1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the actions of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 appointing opposite party No. 4 as the dealer for the Company owned retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation at Attabira in the district of Bargarh. Opposite party No. 1-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') which is a Government of India Enterprise and is controlled and financed by the Government of India, proposed to open Company owned retail outlets at different places including Attabira town in the district of Bargarh and issued advertisement in the daily local news paper 'The New Indian Express' dated 25-8-2000 inviting applications from eligible physically handicapped candidates. In response to the said advertisement, several physically handicapped persons including the petitioner and opp. parties 4 and 5 submitted applications with the required information and documents. After scrutiny of the applications, the De...
Tag this Judgment!Branch Manager, National Insurance Vs. Saheba Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-11-2004
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT400; [2005(105)FLR375]
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Heard.2. Though this matter was listed for orders on consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties the same was finally heard and is disposed of.3. It is submitted that during pendency of this Appeal Respondent No. 1, Saheba Sahu expired. A petition for substitution has been filed in Court to implead the legal heirs. The legal heirs of Saheba Sahu also entered appearance. The petition for substitution was thus allowed and the legal heirs are directed to the impleaded as Respondent Nos. 1-A to 1-D.4. The judgment passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ganjam, Berhampur in W.C. Case No. 43/95 is assailed by the Insurance Company. Admittedly, the claimant was working under Respondent No. 2 as a driver he sustained injuries in course of discharging his service on account of the accident of the truck bearing Registration No. OR-07-7635. In support of the claim, the claimant produced certain documents including the certificate granted by the treating ph...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Snehalata Behera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT342
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Counsel for the claimants/Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. This LPA is disposed of on their consent at the stage of admission.2. Judgment of Learned Single Judge passed on 27.1.2004 in M.A. No. 2 of 2001 is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that Learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the award passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (in short, 'Tribunal') in Misc. Case No. 1213 of 1991. Award of the Tribunal was delivered on 17.11.1999. Appellant challenges to the aforesaid award and the judgment on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive by adopting the higher multiplier and that, in absence of proof of a valid driving licence in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle, liability of the awarded amount should not have been saddled on the appellant.3. So far as the contention relating to excessiveness of the award, it is argued by the appellant that...
Tag this Judgment!Kanika Mistry, Alies Mandal Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ643
A.K. Samantray, J.1. The appellant calls in question the order of conviction and sentence passed against her on 18-9-2003 in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2000 by Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri convicting her under Section 302 of the I. P. C. and sentencing to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The factual position as presented by the prosecution sans unnecessary details is as follows :On 15-11-1999 at 11.15 A. M. information was lodged at Kalimela P. S. by informant Sita Mistry that she was absent from home at M. V. 57 Village on 14-11-1999 and on her return home at 10.00 A. M. she found her son Sankar Mistry (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') lying dead in front of her house. To ascertain the cause of the death of the deceased a meeting was convened and in the said meeting in presence of Sarpanch and other villagers her daughter-in-law Kanika Mistry (accused) disclosed that she was responsible for the death of deceased. On further questioning she gave out that the deceased, her husban...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kalyani Dash Vs. Himansu Sekhar Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ori35
A.K. Samantray, J. 1. This Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-1-1995 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 96 of 1994 allowing dissolution of marriage between petitioner-husband and the opposite party-wife. Opposite party-wife is the. appellant before us.2. Admittedly, the petitioner and the opposite party are legally married husband arid wife and the marriage took place according to Hindu rites and custom on 20-6-1991.3. The petitioner stayed with the opposite party for 24 days but on various pretext the opposite party did not allow the petitioner to consummate the marriage by cohabitation during the said period. The petitioner when applied physical force for having cohabitation, she turned violent and bit him, The petitioner who served in the Indian Navy went to his place of service at Visakhapatnam and the opposite party staying back in the house of petitioner for 3 months, left the matrimonial house and went to her...
Tag this Judgment!Darasongh Kumbhar Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ori51; 98(2004)CLT681
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ appeal was heard on the question of jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Single Judge in deciding the writ petition as a preliminary issue. Writ (C) No. 5065 of 2004 from which this appeal arises had been filed challenging the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepur reversing the finding and order passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepur in an election petition filed under Section 30 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964.2. There is no dispute at the Bar that as per amended rules of this Court, Writ Applications relating to the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 are to be heard by Division Bench. However, the aforesaid writ application was listed before the Hon'ble Single Judge who disposed of the same by his order dated 6.7.2004. It was contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant in this writ appeal that the Hon'ble Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ application as the amen...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Mahapatra Vs. Chairman, Konark Tv Ltd. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT690; [2005(104)FLR391]; (2005)ILLJ1060Ori
J.P. Mishra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of his disciplinary authority passed under Annexure-4 wherein he has been removed from the service.2. The factual aspect is that the petitioner was appointed by the opp. parties as Accounts Assistant in April, 1983 and, subsequently, was promoted to the post of Senior Accountant in 1989. During the course of his service, he faced proceeding and two charges were framed vide Annexure-1 on 27.9.1991. It was alleged by the authority that he has started a business in the name of his relation Mr. S. C. Mohapatra in the name and style of M/s. Insat Voice 'N' Vision and Sonali Electronics amounting to serious misconduct under Rule 20(b)(i) of the Standing Orders of Konark Television Ltd./Rule 16(1) of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Company. It was further alleged that intoto Rs. 1,15,259.17 P. was outstanding against said Mohapatra causing loss to the company-Konark Television Ltd. Therefore, according to the company, the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »