Orissa Court December 2004 Judgments
Jyoti Prakash Biswal Vs. Registrar, Utkal University and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT795
J.P. Mishra, J.1. All the petitioners in the above writs have prayed to enforce and implement Annexure-1 wherein they have been shown to have passed their back papers in final degree back Science (+3) Examination, 2002. They have also prayed for non-applicability of Annexure-2 & 3. Since all the petitioners are students of the same college, this common order shall govern all the Writ Applications.2. The case of the petitioners is that they were 1998 Admission Batch of +3 Science course in S.S.D. College of Science and Technology (Opp. Party No. 2). They appeared at pre-degree examination in 2000 and final degree examination in 2001. In the examination of 2001 Paper IV Botany, Paper IV Physics (Core-l) were cancelled and they appeared again in the year 2002 in those back papers which was held on 17.4.2002 in the college of Opp. Party No. 2. According to the adverment, they were declared pass on 19.6.2002 vide Annexure-l, but were not supplied with the marks either by the Utkal Universit...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bidhu Bhusan Maharana Vs. the Controller of Examinations and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT39
J.P. Mishra, J.1. In this Writ Application, the petitioner has sought for indulgence of this Court as his result was not published (being withheld) though he has appeared in +3 Commerce Degree Special Examination, 1998 in Commercial Law subject.2. The claim of the petitioner is that he appeared in +3 Commerce Degree Special Examination, 1998 under the Director, Directorate of Distance Continuing Education (hereinafter referred to as 'DDCE') of Utkal University, Vani Vihar through Kendrapara College, Kendrapara. He was issued Admit Card (Annexure-I) bearing Roll No. 301 E 93501. The petitioner received communication from the Opp. Party No. 2-DDCE bearing letter No. Ex/32769/98 dated 19.11.1998 that his result has been withheld for non-inclusion of mark in Commercial Law subject. On receipt of the said letter-Annexure-2, he approached the Principal, Kendrapara College, who in his turn vide letter No. 2543 dated 28.11.1998 (Annexure-3) submitted xerox copy of the memo from and the stateme...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Pradhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1859; 2005(I)OLR225
B.P. Das, J.1. Heard Shri B. K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 30/8 of 2002/2003 confirming the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, in G.R. Case No. 603 of 1999 refusing to recall the order taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341/323/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called 'the Act').3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 805/2002 praying to quash the order taking cognizance against them and this Court by its order dated 12.2.2002 disposed of the said case with the direction that on the petitioners surrendering in the Court below they woul...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashib Mohapatra Vs. Vice Chancellor-cum-chairman, Orissa University ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT41; [2005(106)FLR727]
J.P. Mishra, J.1. The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions has challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution to the order under Annexures-7 and 13 for reduction of his rank from Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant along with other punishments passed by his disciplinary authority. He has also placed his grievance for inaction of the Opposite Parties as he was not given promotion to the post of Senior Assistant again after his demotion.2. The petitioner was selected by the committee of University of Agriculture and Technology and was appointed directly as Senior Clerk. He joined the same post on 14.8.1970. During his incumbency as Senior Assistant (Accountant-cum-Head Clerk) in the College of Agriculture and Regional Research Station, O.U.A.T. at Chiplima, he was placed under suspension on 23.7.1984 pending the disciplinary proceeding vide Order No. 1820 dated 23.7.1984 for gross negligence in duty and misappropriation of University money to the tune of 18,878.89p. (Annexure-1). An ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Suvendu Kumar Parida Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, Bharat Petroli ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT53
J.P. Mishra, J.1. The petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus for quashing the letter of intent issued in favour of Opposite Party Nos. 4 or 5 in regard to the Retail Outlet Dealership of Bharat Petroleum Ltd. at Baripada and to grant the said Retail Outlet Dealership in his favour pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure-1).2. The claim of the petitioner is that in response to the advertisement (Annexure-1 in Samaj dtd. 15.6.1998 for the Retail Outlet Dealership under Open Category at Baripada, he applied (vide Annexure-2) for the same complying all requirements. He was called for the interview under Annexure-3 by the Dealer Selection Board (Opp. Party No. 3) and accordingly he appeared in the interview on 21.1.1999. He remained under the impression as per this information that he stood first in the Selection list. Since he did not get any intimation from the Opp. Party Nos. 1, 2 & 3 he tried to know it by correspondence and telegram (Annexures-4, 5 & 6), the last being on 10...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parbati Giri Vs. Sri Harihar Giri
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT264
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. This appeal is preferred as against the judgment delivered on October, 29, 1999 by the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No. 31 of 1999.2. Petitioner before the Court below is the appellant. She instituted the proceeding under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming for maintenance from the respondents on the assertion that she is the legally married wife of the Respondent. We see from the impugned judgment as well as the application filed by the appellant in the Court below that she claimed of a temple marriage by exchange of garlands and through that the legal status of a wife in accordance with the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. She narrated the events by saying that a day before the Viswakarma Puja of 1995 she and the respondent, because of the love affair, went to Siva Temple, exchanged garlands and lived as husband and wife in the place where the petitioner has domiciled. Notwithstanding the intermi...
Tag this Judgment!Sulochana SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1330; 2005(I)OLR125
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The order dated 4-6-2004 passed by the S.D.J.M., Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2004 arising out of G.R. Case No. 927 of 2004 wherein he rejected the petition under Section 457, Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioner to release the Yahama motor cycle bearing registration No. OR-02 F-6521 in her favour is under challenge in this revision.2. The petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid Yahama motor cycle. It was seized by the police personnel of Barachana Police Station on the allegation that it was used in commission of an offence under Section 395, IPC in G.R. Case No. 927 of 2003 of the aforesaid Court and kept in Police Station premises. Admittedly the petitioner in whose name the motor cycle stands is not an accused in that case. So she filed a petition under Section 457, Cr. P.C. before the S.D.J.M. Jajpur for interim custody of the vehicle, but it was rejected since the vehicle was not insured from 24-6-2001 onwards. Being aggrieved with the said order, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(I)OLR129
R.N. Biswal. J.1. The order dated 2.11.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Angul in Special Case No. 1 of 2004 wherein he rejected the petition filed under Section 457, of the Cr.P.C. for release of the Mini-bus bearing Registration No. OR-06-E-8188 in favour of the petitioner.2. The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid Bus. He was plying it as stage carriage from Bagadia to Cuttack and back. On 16.10.2004 receiving a telephonic message that Tankadhar Biswal and Anchal Majhi were transporting Ganja in the aforesaid bus, the O.I.C. of Chhendipada Police Station with his staff in presence of the local Tahasildar stopped the bus near the Police Station. On search some Ganja was recovered from possession of accused Tankadhar Biswal and Anchal Majhi who were moving in that bus. As they were not backed by any authority for such possession, the same was seized and F.I.R. was lodged against them on the allegation that they committed offence under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Krushna Chandra Sahoo Vs. Shyamsundar Sahoo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT656; 2005(I)OLR104
A.S. Naidu, J.The petitioner is Defendant No. 6 in C.S. No. 1 of 2002 pending before the Civil Judge (SD), First Court, Cuttack. The said suit as one for partition and for setting aside a sale deed executed in favour of a stranger purchaser and for other ancillary reliefs. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file his written statement within ninety days as mandatorily required under Order 8, Rule 1, CPC. He was therefore set ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC for setting aside the ex parte order. He also filed a written statement with a petition to the accept the same, but the Trial Court rejected both the petitions on the ground that in consonance with Order 8, Rule 1, CPC, the written statement filed by a defendant after ninety days could not be accepted. The Court below also relied upon several decisions.3. There is no quarrel about the proposition that after lapse of ninety days a written statement cannot be accepted as per provision of ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Patra Vs. Kanduri Bhatta and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(I)OLR118
R.N. Biswal, J. 1. The order dated 16.10.2004 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Puri in Criminal Misc. case No. 439 of 2004 arising out of a proceeding Under Section 144 Cr.P.C. wherein he directed the S.D.O., CESCO, Puri Division-II (2nd party No. 1) to restore power supply to the 2nd party No. 2 keeping in view the decision of C.D. case No. 166 of 2004 and avoiding the disputed plot Nos. 285, 286 and 287 is under challenge by the 2nd party No. 2 in this revision.2. The present petitioner was the 2nd party No. 2 while Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 3 were the 1st party and O.P. No. 4, the S.D.O., CESCO, Puri Division No. II at Red Cross Road was the 2nd party No. 1 before the Court below in Crl. Misc. case No. 439 of 2004.3. As per the case of the 1st party the disputed property as described in Schedule A and B of the petition under Section 144 Cr.P.C. originally belonged to Radha Mohan Dev Bije at village Naskari Patna, the private deity of Bhabani Prusty, Radhamon Prusty and other Prusty fa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »