Orissa Court March 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.
Orissa Manganese and Minerals (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Adhunik Steel Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ori113
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 18-8-2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Sundargarh in Civil Misc. Application No. 8 of 2004 restraining the present appellant, it's servants, agents and any other person acting under the appellant from relying, acting upon, giving effect to letter dated 24-11-2003 and the purported termination of the contract on 14-5-2003. The Court further restrained the appellant from dispossessing the respondent from the mines in question and directed that the temporary injunction shall remain in force till final award is passed by the Arbitration Tribunal.2. The respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Act to restrain the appellant from acting upon or giving effect to letter dated 24-11-2003 and the purported termination thereby and also for restraining the appellant from dispossessing the respondent from the ...
Birat Chandra Dagara Vs. Taurian Exim Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ori147
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17-5-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur in 1. A. No. 12 of 2003 restraining the appellant from managing, operating, raising, extracting Iron Ores from Suleipat Mines and from interfering with the management, operation, raising, extraction of iron ores from the said mines in terms of Power of Attorney dated 9-7-2002 till disposal of the suit.2. Respondents have filed Civil suit No. 38 of 2003 in the Court of the learned civil Judge (Senior Division), praying for a declaration that the deed of revocation dated 16-7-2002 is void, illegal and inoperative and for further declaration that in view of the registered Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 9-7-2002 executed by the sole defendant in favour of the plaintiff No.l and backed by payments as indicated in the plaint, the plaintiff-respondents are entitled to operate the suit schedule mine as described in Schedule-A and for permanent injunc...
State of Orissa Vs. Bhagaban Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT27; 2005(II)OLR17
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. In his report dated 20.9.2002, Superintendent, Criminal Section, has reported that evidence of P.W. No. 1 was recorded twice. The first date of recording was 22.5.1984 and the second date of recording of such evidence was on 21.1.1985 and that such depositions was correctly prepared and kept in the paper book. On a reference to the order sheet dated 22.5.1985 of the Trial Court, it is seen that after examination and cross-examination of P.W. No. 1, application filed by the prosecution under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to summon accused Gopinath Mishra to face the trial was allowed by the Trial Court. After securing attendance of that accused trial was undertaken, de novo and that is how evidence of P.W. No. 1 was afresh recorded on 21.1.1985. Thus, the doubt in that respect is cleared.2. Heard.3. For the reasons noted below, the Government Appeal failed and accordingly dismissed.4. Judgment of the Court of C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial No. 10/...
Bauribandhu Acharya and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR32
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The decision of the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa dated 11th June, 2001 in Consolidation Revision Case No. 1763 of 1998, Annexure-2, is assailed in this Writ application.2. The said Revision Case was filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the present petitioners inter alia challenging the order dated 9th November, 1998 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Jagatsinghpur in Appeal Case No. 37 of 1997. The said appeal arose out of an order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jagatsinghpur in Remand Revision Case No. 687 of 1998.3. The property in dispute appertains to Land Register Plot No. 11-84, Khata No. 632 corresponding to Current Settlement Plot No. 1268, Khata No. 43, and Revision Settlement (1985) Plot No. 714, Khata No. 32 of Mouza-Mohira, P.S. and District-Jagatsinghpur. The petitioners claim title over the said property by virtue o...
Sri Bijaya Kumar Routray Vs. Registrar (Administration), Orissa High C ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(I)OLR685
M. Quddusi, J. 1. By means of this writ petition a question has arisen before this Court as to whether on accepting the report of the Enquiring Officer by the Disciplinary authority and exonerating him from the charges, the period of suspension can be treated as such 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sambalpur was placed under suspension vide order-dated 20.1.1995 by this Court on administrative side pending conclusion of the enquiry. Consequently, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 26.8.1995. Thereafter another additional charge sheet was issued on 15.1.1996. The petitioner submitted written statement and thereafter an enquiry was conducted under the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.C.A. Rules'). After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiring Officer, i.e., the District Judge, Cuttack, had submitted his report holding t...
A. Gangadhar Vs. K. Prasad
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 99(2005)CLT560; 2005(I)OLR535
R.N. Biswal, J.1. In this revision the petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the Order dated 25.2.2002 passed by the S.D.J.M., Puri in ICC No. 119 of 2001 wherein he refused to take cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'N.I. Act') and dropped the proceeding.2. The petitioner was the complainant and the opp. party was the accused in the aforesaid complaint case. As per the complaint petition, the complainant deals in fishing net and boat materials. He used to supply the same to different persons including the accused on credit and collects the price thereof subsequently. In the process the accused owed a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to him by 15.4.2001. On request of the complainant on 18.4.2001 he handed over to him a post dated cheque (dated 20.4.2001) amounting to Rs. 40,000/- drawn from Andhra Bank, Puri branch. The complainant presented the cheque in his Bank i.e., United Puri-Nimapara Cen...
Surendra Kumar Samal Vs. State and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(I)OLR588
ORDERR.N. Biswal, J.1. This CRLMA is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to cancel the bail granted in favour of accused-opp. Party No. 2 by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil in G.R. Case No. 124 of 2004 on 25.3.2004. Opp.Party No. 2 and some others have been arrayed as accused in the aforesaid G.R. Case for the offence under Sections 379/323/34 I.P.C.2. On a petition for bail filed on behalf of the accused-opp.Party No. 2 the J.M.F.C., Barbil released him on bail on 25.3.2004 holding that the offences are bailable in nature while in fact Section 379 I.P.C. is a non-bailable one. Hence the petition for cancellation of the bail order.3. None appeared on behalf of the accused-opp.Party No. 2 when the matter was taken up.4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that even though the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. is non-bailable in nature, the Court below carelessly held it to be a bailable offence and accordingly released the accused-opp.Party No. 2 on bail.5. ...
Narayan Rath Vs. Sakuntala Rath and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC86; 2005(I)OLR654
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 21.1.2003 passed by the J.M.F.C., Kodala in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2000 and the confirming order dated 29.7.2003 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2003 (subsequently renumbered as Crl. Revision No. 36 of 2003, GDC).2. Opp. Party No. 1 on behalf of herself and also on behalf of minor daughter-opp. party No. 2 filed a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance claiming herself as the wife and opp. party No. 2 as daughter of the petitioner. The case of the opp. parties was that petitioner and opp. party No. 1 were married according to the Hindu rites and customs on 5.2.1981 and opp. party No. 2 was born out of the said wedlock. Some time after the birth of opp. party No. 2, the petitioner neglected to maintain the opp. parties and subjected them to physical and mental torture, as a result, opp. parties had to...
Ratan Harijan Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT367
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.3.1996 passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1995 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution as emerges from the FIR and the evidence on record, in brief, is that on 31.5.1994 at about 10 p.m. while the informant and her husband were quarrelling with each other on the 'Pinda' of their house, the accused-appellant came there and asked as to why they were making hullah and so saying he gave a fist blow on her chest. Such action of the appellant was protested by the deceased, husband of the informant. The accused-appellant went away and came with an axe. But Buti Bhotra (P.W. 4) and Paul Harijan (P.W. 3) snatched away the axe from him. Thereafter, the accused-appellant went away and the informant and her husband were present on the 'Pinda' of their house. Some time a...
Pratap Chandra Mohanty Vs. the Chief Engineer, Paradip Port Trust and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ori104; 2006(1)CTLJ382(Ori)
M.M. Das, J.1. The Paradip Port Trust through its Executive Engineer, issued a tender call notice (Annexure-1) on 20-6-2004, inviting tenders from experienced and resourceful port enlisted contractors for construction of a cyclone shelter-cum-school at Baruria Palanda. One of the terms of the tender was that the tender may not be considered or is liable for rejection unless the tender is accompanied with a certified true copy of the up-to-date Income Tax and Sales Tax clearance certificates.2. The petitioner, opp. party No. 5 and some others offered their tenders. The same being considered by the tender committee of the Paradip Port Trust held on 7-9-2004. it was decided to allot the work to the opp. party No. 5 who was the lowest tenderer. On negotiation, the said opp.party No. 5 also reduced his quoted amount by a further sum of more than Rs. 2.00 lakhs.3. The petitioner, in the present writ application, calls in question the said action of the Paradip Port Trust in awarding the cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »