Orissa Court October 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sri Biswanath Sahoo and ors. Vs. Sri Manoj Tanmay Mohan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ori94; 2005(II)OLR811
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Petitioners as plaintiffs filed C.S. No. 52/ 2004 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. inter alia, praying as follows :-'(A) Let a decree for declaration be passed with respect to the suit land as described in Schedule-A of the plaint as shown in relay map attached to the plaint and identified in Yellow colour showing an area of Ac.0.112 decimals of land, forms part of Plot No. 38 of 1962 settlement R.O.R./ 1953-54 Revenue map and plaintiffs have absolute right, title, interest therein, with an alternative declaration that the suit land as indicated above does not form part of Plot No. 37 of 1962 settlement R.O.R./1953-54 Revenue Map and the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest therein.(B) Let a decree for recovery of damage of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only as sustained by the plaintiffs on account of illegal dispossession of the plaintiffs by the defendants from the suit land and towards demolition of the house stand...
Kanhu Charan Mishra Vs. State of Orissa and Four ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR712
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. The order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak, suspending the supply of monthly quota of the petitioner, who is a retailer of Battitanki under Chandbali Block, is assailed in this writ application. 2. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is mandatory under the provision of Clause-10 of the Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002, to issue a show cause notice before an order of suspension is passed. The provision of Clause-10 of the Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002 reads as follows :- 10. Contravention of conditions of licence-No holder of a licence issued under this order or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf shall contravene any of the terms of conditions of the licence and if any such person contravenes any of the said terms and conditions, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, his licence may be cancelled or suspended by order...
Khagendra Nath Behera Vs. Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Be ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)OLR49
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Aparesh Bhoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for opposite parties 2 to 4.2. Opposite party No.1, i.e., Orissa Administrative Tribunal is deleted from the array of the parties 2 to 4.3. It appears that the O.A. filed by the petitioner is pending before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar which has been registered as O.A. No. 879 of 2005 and vide order dated 28.9.2005 the Tribunal while issuing notice on admission fixed for 2.11.2005 directed that the respondents would produce evidence that after 1990 in fact they have advertised for the vacancy of leprosy para-medical workers or multi purpose health workers as the case may be. The Tribunal wanted to see if the applicant has ignored this notification and has chosen to pursue his own career in any non-government organisation which would be crucial to the adjudication of the matter.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar cases, i.e., O.A. No...
Pramila Mohanty and ors. Vs. Banabihari Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT778; I(2006)DMC195
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the judgment dated 7.1.2002 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 269 of 2000. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002 has been filed by the wife and children for enhancement of the amount of maintenance whereas Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002 has been filed by the husband to set aside the impugned judgment.Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment, which will govern both the cases.2. Appellant No. 1 and respondent in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002 are wife and husband respectively. Appellants 2 to 6 are their children. The wife and children (Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002) filed a petition under Sections 18 & 20 of the Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act before the Family Court claiming monthly maintenance, cost of separate residence and marriage expenses of appellants 2 t...
Sunadhar Kakari Vs. B.V. Rabana Murty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT635; 2005(II)OLR731
A.K. Parichha, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.2003 passed by learned District Judge, Koraput in Election Dispute Case bearing M.J.C. No. 48 of 2002 allowing the prayer of the election petitioner, i.e., Opp. Party No. 1 in the present Writ Petition, for recounting of ballots of the election which was held for the 13 Mithili-II Zilla Parishad Zone on 19.2.2002. In the impugned abnormally lengthy order, learned District Judge has held that for the circumstances indicated therein with respect to votes being cast in the names of dead persons and persons substituting real voters, recounting of ballot is essential.2. Mr. N. C. Pati, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is legally unsustainable as the same is contrary to the provisions laid down in the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act and Rules. According to him, the procedure and circumstances for recounting have been clearly enumerated in Rule 31, Sub-rule 7 of the Panchayat Samiti Election Rule...
Mukesh Oil Mills (P) L Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR764
N. Prusty, J.1. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision challenging the order dated 13.9.2005 passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in V.G.R. Case No. 23 of 2005 rejecting an application filed by it under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of 945 tins of seized mustard oil in its favour on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish the ownership of the seized mustard oil.2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that the petitioner-Company being the manufacturer of the mustard oil, despatched the seized mustard oil through transport on 18.6.2005 to the consignee's destination at Bhubaneswar i.e. Subhadra Enterprisers, Indradhanu Market, Bhubaneswar. The consignee booked the oil through broker Murali Patra and promised to pay the value of the oil on delivery. Accordingly, the bill (Annexure-2) was drawn up by the petitioner in favour of the consignee on the condition that the consignee shall pay the bill amount of Rs. 6,36,108/- and take delive...
Bhramarbar Subudhi Vs. Sayed Ajhar Alli
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR769
N. Prusty, J.1. The petitioners, who were accused persons in ICC No. 2303 of 2003 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, have filed this application challenging the order dated 18.12.2005 whereby their petition to extend the benefit of Section 205 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with their personal appearance was rejected and they were directed to appear physically before the Court failing which coercive measure shall be take for causing their appearance.2. The plea of the petitioners for dispensing with their personal appearance was that petitioner No. 1 is a sick person having cardiac problem, petitioner No. 2 is prosecuting his higher studies and petitioner No. 3 is an Advocate of Bhubaneswar Bar and there is no likelihood on their part not to appear in the Court on the date fixed by the Court; they are respected persons of the locality and there is no chance of their absconding at any stage of the trial.3. The petitioner's case in short is that the complainant's father had a sho...
Krushna Chandra Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR793
A.K. Samantaray, J.1. In this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are father and sort have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.12.2003 in G.R. Case No. 23 of 2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C.. Patrapur (GM). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506/34, IPC on the allegation of opposite party No. 2.2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition which was subsequently treated as FIR as per the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC, in short is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 A. Ranga Rao. petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chandra Sahu, Rajendra Kumar Sahu. Basudev Panda. Pravakar Sabat and Prafulla Kumar Sahu constituted a firm in the name and style of 'Madhupriya Estate'. They also executed a partnership deed on 1.8,1998 and according to the terms of the partnership deed they had to share the capital. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 Krushna Chand...
Shri Hindu Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT673
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In the instant Writ Application the petitioner challenges the notice dated 10.1.2005 issued by the Sub-Collector, Baliguda and the consequential order dated 9.2.2005 passed by Collector, Kandhamal (Opp. Party No. 2) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act.2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was the elected Sarpanch of Barakhama Grama Panchayat in the district of Kandhamal. On 11.1.2005, petitioner received a notice dated 10.1.2005 from the Sub-Collector (Opp. Party No. 3) convening a meeting to consider the 'no confidence motion' against him to be held on 25.1.2005 in the office of the above Grama Panchayat. On 25.1.2005 a special meeting was held at 11 a.m. The petitioner and all the Ward Members were present in the said meeting. The meeting was presided over by the Revenue Officer. The no confidence motion was passed with majority. The Presiding Officer of the meeting sent a copy of the proceeding to...
Bijay Kumar SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR752
A.K. Samantaray, J.1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the arbitrary and illegal rejection of his claim for approval and consequent release of Grant-in-aid against the post of Demonstrator in Chemistry of Rajsunakhala College in the District of Nayagarh by the Government in an erroneous application of the Grant-in-aid Order, 2004 whereas the said Grant-in-aid is not applicable to the petitioner's case as the petitioner's case is covered by the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 and Clauses 3 and 4 of Grant-in-aid Order, 2004 have saved the petitioner's case.2. The fact of the petitioner's case is that in the year 1978-79 the opposite party No. 3 college, i.e., Rajsunakhala College, Rajsunakhala was established with requisite concurrence and affiliation. In the year 1983-84 Science stream was opened in the said college with 128 seats and one Sri Rabindra Nath Muduli joined as Store Keeper-cum-Lab. Assistant in Chemistry De...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »