Orissa Court May 2004 Judgments
Dr. Bhupesh Kumar Nayak and ors. Vs. Secretary, Health and Family Welf ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT234
P.K. Mohanty, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, common question of law and identical facts being involved, on the prayer of the writ petitioners and on agreement of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, all the matters are heard analogous and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Dr. Bhupesh Kumar Nayak, in W. P. (C) No. 1387 of 2004 and Dr. Sanat Kumar Pasupalak and another in W. P. (C) No. 1484 of 2004, have called in question the decision of the opposite parties in fixing 31st December, 2003 as the cut off date as eligibility for entrance test for Post Graduate Medical Course, 2004, they having completed internship after passing M. B. B. S. degree sometime in January, 2004, certificate for which is expected to be issued by 31st of March, 2004, as illegal, arbitrary and without any nexus and deprives the petitioners the right to undertake the P. G. Course, 2004.3. Dr. Sarmishta Padhy in W. P. (C) No. 1688 of 2004 and Dr. Shakti Prasad Satapathy in W. P. (C) No. 24...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Committee of Kaduamagura U.P. (M.E.) School Vs. State of ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT313; 2004(I)OLR673
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. All these four writ applications at the instance of respective Managing Committees of the Schools in question involve common questions of law and fact and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners' case is that the U.P. (M.E.) Schools established by the respective Managing Committees were granted permission. In the order granting permission, some conditions were imposed which were required to be complied with by the Managing Committees. After the schools in question were granted permission, the Managing Committees submitted applications for grant of recognition and on consideration of the same, the petitioner-Schools were granted temporary recognition. It is alleged that the petitioner-schools fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the temporary recognition orders for which the petitioners submitted applications for grant of permanent recognition, but the Director-Opp. Party No. 2 instead of according permanent reco...
Tag this Judgment!Hi-tech Institute of Information Technology Vs. Berhampur University a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ori157; 98(2004)CLT464; 2004(I)OLR668
Mohanty, J.1. In both the aforesaid writ petitions, challenge is essentially to the eligibility clause for admission to the 3-Year Degree Course in Bachelor of Information Technology (for short 'B.I.T.') contained in the Regulations of the Berhampur University. W. P. (C) No. 983 of 2002 is at the instance of the Hi-tech Institute of Information Technology (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute'), whereas W. P. (C) No. 8016 of 2003 has been filed by some of the students, who have taken admission to the aforesaid B.I.T. course in the Institute. Since the facts and points of law involved in both the writ petitions are common, they were heard together with the consent of counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this judgment.2. The crux of the petitioners' case is that the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Berhampur University for admission to B.I.T. Course as contained in Clause 2 of its Regulations are discriminatory and arbitrary and as such, are liable to be quashed. The...
Tag this Judgment!Birabhanu Mohapatra Vs. Narendra Nath Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(I)OLR695
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of the Executive Magistrate, Cuttack passed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the petitioner to shift an industry from the site where it is located at present and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2002 confirming the said order.2. The opposite parties are resident of Manavila under Malgodown P.S. and they filed an application under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the present petitioner to remove the nuisance caused due to running of a factory by the petitioner. The case of the opposite parties is that Manavila is a residential area constituting several residential houses. One Bishnu Jain who owned one of the houses has given on rent the said house to the petitioner for using the same as an industry for manufacturing steel furniture and also for fabrication of iron and steel frames. I...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Repose Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT641
A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. The Case of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the Petitioner No. 1 company took lease of a property situated at Sea Beach at Puri for the purpose of starting a hotel. They availed a loan of Rs. 8,15,000/- from the State Bank of India, Puri and converted the said property to a comfortable hotel. Opp. Party No. 4 was the guarantor for the said loan. Since the Petitioner No. 1 company defaulted in repaying the loan, the State Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of the outstanding amount in the Loan Account. But subsequently, the claim of the Bank was settled and an application was filed for withdrawal of the suit. When the Managing Director of the Petitioner No. 1 company was away to Calcutta, the Opp. Party No. 4 forcibly took possession of the hotel and assumed management of the hotel from 15.3.2001. The Petitioners lodged a complaint in the Sea Beach Police Station against Opp. Party No. 4 but the local police did not initiate any action against Opp....
Tag this Judgment!Subarna Dibya and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(I)OLR168
A.S. Naidu, J.1. These Writ Petitions involve common question of law and were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In all these Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the Notification issued by the Government of Orissa, Department of School & Mass Education dated 18th October, 2001. By the said Notification, the Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 27 of the Orissa Education Act sought to amend the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees' Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 by introduction of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees' Retirement Benefit (Amendment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the '2001 Amendment Rules'). The Amendment Rules came into force on the 1st day of September, 1988.3. The moot question that needs to be answered in the present Writ Petitions is as to whether the family of a primary school/high school teac...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhima Marandi @ Majhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC933; 98(2004)CLT1; [2004(102)FLR708]
M.M. Das, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 26.3.2001 passed in W. C. Case No. 8 of 1996 by the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mayurbhanj, Baripada.2. Respondents 1 to 7 as legal heirs of deceased Gajendra Marandi @ Majhi claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of said Gajendra Marandi who died in a motor accident which arose out of and in course of his employment as a driver of a jeep bearing registration No. ORM-3033 on 25/26.5.1996 night. On the application being filed and notice issued to the appellant-insurer as Opp. Party No. 2 and the respondent No. 8, the owner as Opp. Party No. 1, they entered appearance in the said case and filed their respective written statement. The owner of the vehicle though denied the fact of employment of said Gejendra Marandi as a driver, but stated in her written sta...
Tag this Judgment!Debendranath Balabant Ray Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ori138; IV(2004)BC113; 98(2004)CLT12; 2004(I)OLR651
B.P. Das, J.1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioner and the opposite parties being the same and the facts involved being almost similar, both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In W.P.(C) No. 11104/2003 the petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure - 6, the office order issued by O. P. No. 5 - the Executive Engineer, Rengali Right Canal Division No. II, Dhenkanal, forfeiting the earnest money deposited by him along with the tender submitted in respect of the work 'Excavation of Gondia Branch Canal from RD 5.070 to 5.580 Km. of RBC of Rengali Irr. Project', as also Annexure-10, the communication of O. P. No. 1 - the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Govt. of Orissa in the Department of Water Resources, rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2003 to allow him to furnish performance security at the reduced rate as has been allowed to another contractor, namely, Shri S. C. Panda, as per Annexure - 8. The petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Orient Paper Mills
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT825
M.M. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Orissa under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment and order dated 14.10.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in O. S. No. 74 of 1979 by which the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the said suit on contest while allowing the Misc. Case No. 99/97 filed by the respondent under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Act.2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are :The respondent Orient Paper Mills filed O.S. No. 321 of 1988-I under Section 20 of the Act in the Court of Subordinate Judge [now Civil Judge (Senior Division)], Bhubaneswar, with a prayer to direct the State of Orissa to file the original agreement and to refer the dispute between the parties to the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Section 41-A of the Act, for arbitration. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), by its judgment and order dated 9.8.1990 decree...
Tag this Judgment!Jagabandhu Tripathy Vs. District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT36; [2004(102)FLR937]; (2004)IIILLJ703Ori; 2004(I)OLR641
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the order dated 20.11.2002 passed by the District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in D.P. No. 5 of 1999 directing for a fresh enquiry into the charges levelled against him.2. The petitioner's case, in short, is that the aforesaid departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of the charges vide Annexure-2 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurda was appointed as the Enquiring Officer. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiring Officer submitted a report opining that the charges are unfounded and could not be brought home to the delinquent. However, on receipt of the report, the Disciplinary Authority-opposite party No. 1 has passed an order on 20.11.2002 directing to cause fresh enquiry into the charges. On the basis of the said order, the letter under Annexure-1 has been issued which is impugned in this writ petition.3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating therein ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »