Orissa Court February 2004 Judgments
Shyam Sundar Behera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(I)OLR458
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.4.1999 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Bolangir in Sessions Case No. 13-B/2 of 1998 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl, her mother, younger sister and younger brother were staying in their own house at Kulthipali. Since 1992 the father of the victim was serving sentence in a dacoity case and was therefore not staying with the victim and her other family members at the time of occurrence. On the date of occurrence, the mother of the victim, her younger sister and younger brother had gone Nuapali but did not come back home at night. Since the victim was alone at home, she closed all the doors and slept inside. At about 10.00 P.M. having heard the sound o...
Tag this Judgment!Magati Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT444
A. K. Patnaik, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 9.5.2003 issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Excise, Ganjam, Chatrapur asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 6,24,500/-towards balance consideration money and M.G.Q. duty for the year 2002-2003 failing which steps will be taken to recover the said amount from the petitioner.2. To a query by the Court as to why an appeal has not been preferred against the said notice, Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder no appeals are normally filed against the demands of excise duty. He contended that demand of excise duty is calculated in accordance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder and strictly speaking are not an order under the Act and the rules which are appealable.3. Sections 8 and 89(c) of the Act and Rules 59 and 60 of the Orissa Excise Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Land Acquisition Zone Officer Vs. Iswar Behera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT717; 2004(I)OLR413
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard. On the consent of the parties, the appeal stand disposed of at the stage of hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, CPC.The Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Talcher - Sambalpur Rail Link, Angul has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, challenging to the award passed on 26.4.1997 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Angul, in L. A. Misc. Case No. 73 of 1994 under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act').2. The fact which is not in dispute between the parties is that an area of Ac. p. 25 decimals of Bajefasal category of land belonging to the respondent in village Nankapasi was acquired by the State vide declaration No. 55694 dated 1.9.1989 published in Extraordinary Gazette No. 1299 dated 7.9.1989. That land was acquired for construction of Talcher - Sambalpur Railway line. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate states that appellant assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,500/-per acre and determined the compensation @ Rs. 3,875/- excl...
Tag this Judgment!Kulamani Behera Vs. Jayanta Samal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT449; 2004(I)OLR336
A. K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Kenduapada Grama Panchayat. On 28.2.2002, the result of the said election was declared and the petitioner was declared elected. On 2.4.2002 opposite party No. 1 filed Election Misc. Case No. 100 of 2002 praying for re-examination and re-counting of the votes cast in the election of Sarpanch of Kenduapada Grama Panchayat, declaration of election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Kenduapada Grama Panchayat as invalid and void and declaration that the opposite party No. 1 has secured the majority of lawful votes and that the opposite party No. 1 has been elected as Sarpanch of Kendgapada Grama Panchayat. The petitioner filed a reply or rejoinder in the said Election Misc. Case and on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge framed issues on 12.8.2002. Thereafter, witnesses were examined On behalf of opposite party No, 1 and on behalf of the petitioner and on 16.9....
Tag this Judgment!Nava Naik Vs. Smt. Karmi Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT528; 2004(I)OLR435
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard further from learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel. Counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are not present. Hearing is concluded and order is'as follows:2. Case No. 15 of 1981 under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (for short, 'Regulation 2 of 1956') was initiated by opposite party No. 1 on the allegation of unauthorised occupation by Benamidar, i.e. Nanda Kishore Das, i.e. opposite party No. 2. The writ petitioner was opposite party No. 2 in that case. Registered sale deed dated 26.4.1974 was executed in his favour. Opposite party No. 1 alleged that opposite party No. 2 purchased the land Benami in the name of writ petitioner and the said opposite party No. 2 is in possession of the case land unauthorisediy. She (Opposite Party No. 1) stated that she and the writ petitioner are members belonging to Scheduled Tribe whereas opposite party No. 2 is a member of non-sched...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Sekhar Pattjoshi Vs. Jogendra Pattjoshi and 8 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ori131; 97(2004)CLT465
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard,2. Petitioner moved an application entitling that to be a petition under Order 18, Rule 1, CPC with the prayer to direct the defendants No. 8 and 9 to adduce evidence before the petitioner is called upon to adduce defence evidence. On 2.4.2003, in Title Suit No. 37 of 1994 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dharmagarh in a composite order, on that application and the application for amendment moved by defendant Nos. 8 and 9, rejected both the petitions. Therefore, petitioner challenges to the order, in which his application under Order 18, Rule 1, CPC has been rejected. Learned Civil Judge passed that order on the ground that the provision in Order 18, Rule 1, CPC can only be invoked by the plaintiff and not by the -defendants.3. To understand the dispute as well as the contention of the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the facts involved in the suit. In that respect petitioner has filed typed copy (true copy attested) of the plaint, written state...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakanti Jena Vs. Banalata Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT552
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Alando Grama Panchayat in the district of Jagatsinghpur in the election held in 2002. Opposite party No. 1 who was also contesting for the post of the said Sarpanch in the election challenged the election of the petitioner under Section 31 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur, the Election Tribunal which was registered as Election Misc. Case No. 25 of 2002. The sole ground on which opposite party No. 1 prayed to set aside the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch was that the petitioner having not attained the age of twentyone years, as mandatorily required under Section 11 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, was not eligible to contest the election. According to opposite party No. 1, the date of birth of the petitioner, as appears from her High School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa was '15.12.1982' and as such on the date fixed for filing ...
Tag this Judgment!Subas Chandra Panda Vs. Superintending Engineer, Rural Works and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ori124; I(2005)BC70; 97(2004)CLT734; 2005(1)CTLJ75(Ori)
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Being aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties in rejecting his technical bid, the petitioner has approached the portals of this Court. Admittedly, Tender Call Notice, vide Annexure - 3 to the Writ petition, was published in the Samaj, an Oriya daily, on 30th October, 2003 by the Chief Engineer, Rural Works - II, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No. 2 inviting tenders from experienced and qualified contractors for construction of road and CD works under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna including maintenance for five years after construction. The Tender Calf Notice specifically stipulated the eligibility criteria and provided that the intending contractors should submit two bids in two separate envelopes, one being technical bid and the other being price bid. It was also stipulated in the Tender Call Notice that if a tenderer would be found eligible and his technical bid would be accepted after scrutiny, his price bid would be considered. Clause 4.4.A of the In...
Tag this Judgment!Kabini Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT723; 2004(I)OLR354
A.S. Naidu, J. 1. The petitioner-Company, an applicant for lease of Decorative Stone Quarry, seeks to assail the decision of the State Government dated 4th June, 2003, to grant the lease over an area of Ac. 6.90 decimals situated in villages Jungia and Badadalima in the district of Mayurbhanj in favour of M/s. Oriental Trimex Ltd. (opposite party No. 4) thereby rejecting the petitioner's application dated 7th October, 2002.2. The main ground of assailing of such decision is that the petitioner being the earlier applicant for grant of quarry lease over the self-same area was entitled to preferential consideration in consonance with Rule 6(5) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990 (in short, 'the 1990 Rules') but giving a go-bye to the said provision, the State Government decided to grant lease in favour of opposite party No. 4, a later applicant. According to the petitioner, the decision of the State Government is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the 1990...
Tag this Judgment!Gainthabuda Alias Satyanarayan Gainta Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1569; 2004(I)OLR310
A.S. Naidu, J. 1. The appellant along with six others faced trial for alleged commission of offences under Sections 148/302 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively and separately for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code having committed the murders of one Padmalochan Putel and another Trinath Putel on 2-12-1993 at the thrashing floor of deceased Padmalochan Putel and at village Dumerchuan on the road by the side of a nursery, respectively.2. On the basis of an FIR lodged on 2-12-1993 at Kantabanji Police Station in the district of Balangir, G. R. Case No. 179/93 and 180/93 were registered. Both the said cases on commitment to the Court of Session were registered as Sessions Case Nos. 5012 of 1994 and 51/13 of 1994. As both the cases related to the same occurrence, the same were tried together and disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh by a common judgment.3. Bereft of unneces...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »