Orissa Court August 2004 Judgments
Shri Satya Narayan Das and ors. Vs. the Orissa Small Industries Corpor ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT561
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. The petitioners, who are working as Junior Managers in the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation'), have, in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to consider their cases for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager, which they have been illegally denied.2. According to the petitioners, on being appointed in different posts, they came to be promoted to the rank of Junior Manager. Their next promotional post is Assistant Manager. The Orissa Small Industries Corporation Limited Ministerial Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules') governs such promotion. Although the petitioners are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Recruitment Rules, their cases were not considered for such promotion. Being aggrieved, they made representations to Opp. Party No. 2, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Royalex Fashions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ranjan Apparels, Represented by ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT673
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Opposite Party No. 1 in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 336 of 2000 of the Court of District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar has filed this Civil Revision challenging to the order passed on 18.4.2001. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to here as per their status in the said Arbitration Misc. Case. Impugned order is a composite order passed by learned District Judge in rejecting the application filed by the Opp. Party No. 1 under Order 14, Rule 2(2)(b) read with Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code') and allowing the application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17, read with Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code to add the Opp. Party No. 2.2. It is the admitted position on record that on the basis of a contract entered into between the petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 1 that the petitioner worked as a consignee agent for marketing of the goods of the Opp. Party No. 1 Company. The said Opp. Party unilaterally terminated th...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Kumar Moitra and Anr. Vs. Canara Bank, Uditnagar Branch, Represe ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT568
ORDERB.P. Das, J.1. Heard Miss D. Nanda for the petitioners and Shri J. P. Choudhury for the opposite party.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.4.2004 passed in TMS No. 40/66 of 2001 -2003 by which the Ad hoc Addl. Dist. Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela, has rejected the petition for adjournment filed by the present petitioners, who are the defendants.3. From the certified copy of the order-sheets of the suit enclosed to the writ petition, it appears that on 16.4.2004 evidence from the side of the plaintiff, i.e., the present O.P., was closed and the suit was posted to the next day, i.e., 17.4.2004 for hearing of defendants side. On 17.4.2004 the defendants filed an application to adjourn the hearing for some days as it was not possible on their part to get ready to adduce evidence within so short time. The trial Court rejected the petition and directed the parties to get ready by 10 A.M. for hearing of defendants side. When the matter was taken up at 10 A.M. ...
Tag this Judgment!Keshab @ Karmu Giri and ors. Vs. Dasaratha Giri and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ori39; 99(2005)CLT109
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Plaintiffs/Respondents represented by Mr. D. K. Mohapatra, Learned Advocate, have filed Misc. Case No. 1066 of 1999 on 15.10.1999, to abate the appeal because of non-substitution of the legal representatives of Respondent Nos. 11, 12, 14, 18, 20, 21 and 33.2. Appellants have filed Misc. Case Nos. 771, 772 and 773 all of 1988 reporting that Respondent No. 20 died on 9.5.1982 and therefore, the delay be condoned, abatement be set aside and the legal representatives be substituted.3. Appellants have filed Misc. Case Nos. 366, 367 and 368 all of 2000 with the prayer to substitute the legal representatives of Respondents 12, 14 and 33 after condoning the delay and setting aside abatement. Out of them, Respondent No. 12, died on 15.1.1991, Respondent No. 14, died on 14.1.1988 and Respondent No. 33, died on 24.9.1988.4. It appears from the appeal record that after the death of Respondent No. 21 as per Order No. 37, dated 13.5.1991 name of that respondent was expunged from ...
Tag this Judgment!Allied Chemical Laboratories Vs. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ori32; I(2005)BC258; 98(2004)CLT418; [2005]128CompCas939(Orissa)
A.K. Parichha, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.4.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal Orissa, Cuttack in O.A. No. 328 of 2001 in terms of which the claim of Opp. Party No. 2-Bank for a sum of Rs. 23,27,390.16 has been decreed with interest and cost.2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm, namely, 'M/s. Allied Chemical Laboratories'. For bringing some technical changes in his unit he availed a loan of Rs. 3.5 lakhs from Opp. Party No. 2-Bank in the year 1986. In the year 2001 the Bank filed Original Application No. 322 of 2001 before the Debts Recovery tribunal, (in short, 'DRT'), Patna for recovery of the loan amount and interest thereon from the petitioner. The said Original Application was transferred to the DRT, Orissa, Cuttack and was renumbered as OA No. 328 of 2001. On notice, the petitioner appeared and filed show-cause taking a plea that the claim is barred by limitation. He also pleaded that neither he himself nor his ...
Tag this Judgment!Narasingh Bhoi and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4425
A.K. Parichha, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order of cognizance dated 18-8-1998 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubneshwar in ICC No. 149 of 1998 on the ground that the said order of cognizance suffers from want to sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and impinges upon the right and liberty of the petitioners guaranteed by the Constitution of India. 2. Accordingly to the petitioners one Sangram Keshari Mohanty lodged a report before the Balianta Police Station on 28-3-1998 against Manmohan Mohanty alleging that the said Monmohan Mohanty abused him in obscene language, assaulted him with lathi and threatened to kill him. Basing on such report, F.I.R. No. 43 of 1998 was registered in Balianta Police Station and in connection with the investigation of the said case, Manmohan Mohanty was arrested on 30-3-1998 and released on bail. After being released, Monmohan Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Ocl India Limited and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT468; [2003(96)FLR814]
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs:(1) To quash Annexure 6 in which the Government of Orissa in the Department of Labour and Employment issued a corrigendum on 13.6.2003 making a reference in place of earlier reference made in Annexure 5.(2) Order dated 16.6.2003 in Annexure 7 directing transfer of ID Case No. 14 of 2003 to Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela from the Labour Court, Sambalpur for adjudication.2. Case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundargarh. Opposite Party No. 5 made an application on 1.9.1977 to the petitioner-company for being appointed as Mazdoor declaring his age to be 35 years. He was appointed on temporary basis on the said day. He was sent for medical examination on 1.9.1977 and the Medical Officer also assessed his age to be 35 years which was not disputed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Susmita Sahu Vs. State of Orissa Represented by Secretary, Home Depart ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT424; 2004CriLJ4441
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.1. By this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of detention passed in respect of her husband Dipu @ Sangram Sahu by the District Magistrate, Cuttack under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said order of detention was issued on 28.10.2003, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the detenu Dipu @ Sangram Sahu is her husband. When he was in judicial custody in connection with some police case he was served with the detention order dated 28.10.2003 issued by the District Magistrate, Cuttack under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, After the said order of detention dated 28.10.2003 was served the grounds of detention which were signed on 31.10.2003 along with other documents were served on the...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Trinath Singh
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ori70; 2005(2)ARBLR593(Orissa); 98(2004)CLT665
L. Mohapatra, J. 1 . This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.5.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 187 of 2001 Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. The facts giving rise to the proceeding under the Act are as follows :The appellant by notice dated 13.7.1993 called for tender for construction of staff quarters at Rayagada i.e., 3 numbers of Type-I, 3 numbers of Type-H and 6 numbers of Type-Ill quarters at an estimated cost of Rs. 99,885.00. The respondent was one of the tenderers who had quoted Rs. 2,49,499.78 paise and the appellant accepted the said tender. After acceptance of the tender, both the parties entered into an agreement on 7.8.1993. The terms of the agreement provided for completion of the project within a time frame of three months, rescission of the contract on default of the respondent in completing the work as well as an arbitrati...
Tag this Judgment!imperial Fastners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: II(2006)BC445; 98(2004)CLT351; [2005]125CompCas758(Orissa)
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 challenging the order dated 25.6.2004 and the order dated 9.7.2004 passed by the learned Company Judge in Misc. Case Nos. 19 of 2004 and 34 of 2004 respectively in Company Petition No. 29 of 2003.2. The case, in brief, is that M/s S.N. Corporation Limited being opposite party No. 2 was established in the year 1982 in joint sector in association with Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation (for short, 'IPICOL') and its commercial production was started in or about 1985. But, due to mismanagement by the private entrepreneur and for other reasons the said company being opposite party No. 2 started incurring loss since the beginning. The management of the said company was transferred to Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Limited (for short, 'IDCOL') being opposite party No. 1 herein. In 1990 the said company became sick and remained in BIFR for about 13 years till 5.5.2003 and on that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »