Orissa Court May 2004 Judgments
United Friends and Builders (Pvt.) Limited Vs. State of Orissa and ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC133
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This is a case where 'kettle is trying to call the pot black', inasmuch as the petitioner, a Tenderer though did not fulfil all the Tender conditions and was not otherwise eligible for being considered to be awarded the work seeks to challenge the acceptance of the Tender of opposite party No. 4.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts are as follows :In response to a Tender Call Notice published in the Daily 'Samaj' dated 15.9.2002 by the Government of Orissa in the Cooperation Department for finalisation of builders/ developers for Joint Venture Project of construction of commercial/official/residential complex over the vacant leasehold land, many applicants submitted their tenders. The detailed particulars were provided in the Tender Call Notice which has been filed as Annexure R/1. The petitioner's grievance is limited to the item of work at serial number 2 mentioned in the Tender Call Notice which is quoted hereinbelow:'2. Bhubaneswar Plot No. D-l and 14,...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sundar Rout Vs. Braja Kishore Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ori171
A.S. Naidu, J.1. In both these Writ Petitions, the common orders dated 2-9-2003 and 11 -9-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kujang in Election Misc. Case No, 7 of 2002 are impugned.2. The petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 9765/03 is opposite party No. 1 in Election Misc. Case No. 7 of 2002 pending before 'the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kujang. He is the elected Sarpanch of Nuadhini Grama Panchayat in the district of Jagatsinghpur. Similarly the-petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10010/03 is the petitioner in the said Election Misc. Case and he is the losing candidate in the election; 3. The common point of law Which needs determination in these two Writ Petitions is the interpretation of Order 18, Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure as-amended by the Amendment Act of 1976 which came into force in the year 2002.4. The short facts of the case are that the Civil Judge (Junior Division); Rujang in Election Misc. Case No. 7 of 2002 by order dated 2-9-2003 dire...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Gupta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(I)OLR665
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore dismissing Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2003 filed against the order dated 6.01.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput in I.C.C. No. 62 of 2002 taking cognizance of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.2. The opposite party No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. before the Damanjodi Police Station alleging therein that on 18.1.2002 he and some other office bearers of NALCO Employees Union had gone to the office of the petitioner, but they were asked to go out and to meet the C.M.D. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner told the opposite party No. 2 that the opposite party No. 2 has got the service by virtue of a caste certificate. Basing on such F.I.R., investigation was taken up and final form was submitted stating that the case is a false one. Af...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Samal Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ43Ori
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application challenges the legality of the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela on December 13, 2000 in Annexure-10 and the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar dated September 3, 2001 in Annexure-11.2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Pharmacist in Bameibari Manganese Mines of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (TISCO) on December 23, 1983. On April 28, 1993 the Executive Officer, Joda Municipality lodged an F.I.R. before the Joda Police Station implicating the petitioner and alleging therein that the petitioner was one of the group of 30 persons who were protesting before the authority of the Joda Municipality for eviction of shop owners of vegetable market at Joda. Said F.I.R. was registered as G.R. Case No. 85 of 1993 in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil. On May 14, 1993 the Executive D...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Sahu and Seven ors. Vs. Dinabandhu Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT87
B.P. Das, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1980 and 15.9.1980 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak in O.S. No. 123/1977-I. Respondent No. 1- Dinabandhu Sahu and respondent No. 2 - Suka Dei filed the suit as plaintiffs in the Court below. Respondent No. 2 having died during the pendency of this appeal, has been substituted by her legal heir as respondent No. 2(a).2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the properties in Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint and for allotment of 50% share thereof to them. As the case of the plaintiffs stands, the scheduled properties measuring Ac.7.51 decimals comprise of agricultural land as well as homestead land, some of which are ancestral properties and some are acquired properties of the family from out of the joint family nucleus. According to them, all the properties are partible. For the sake of convenience, the genealogy relied upon by the plaintiffs is given below : Panu Sahu | Go...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Dakua Etc. Etc. Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT261; [2004(102)FLR1118]
A.S. Naidu, J.1. According to Mr. Sanganeria, learned counsel for the Petitioners in all these Writ Petitioners, the petitioners are neither litigants, nor litigation is their hobby, but then the arbitrary action of the opposite party-management has thrust litigations upon them which they are bound to prosecute willy nilly by approaching the portals of this Court.2. To make the long story short, the petitioners are the erstwhile employees of the Steel Authority of India Limited (for short 'SAIL'), a Government of India Public Sector Undertaking, and were serving at the Rourkela Steel Plant at Rourkela. They opted for retirement in consonance with the Voluntary Retirement Schedule (for short 'VRS') along with more than six hundred other employees. The VRS stipulated certain benefits under Clause 4. The relevant portion of the said Clause is quoted hereinbelow for better appreciation :'Clause 4.0. Benefits under the Scheme :4.1 An employee whose offer for Voluntary Retirement is accepted...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›