Orissa Court April 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.
Gopinath Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR67
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Though the matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioners are accused in ICC Case No. 35 of 2000 of the Court of learned JMFC, Khurda for the offence under Sections 294, 506 IPC. During the course of trial of the said case, they filed a petition on 13.12.2004 to recall P.Ws. 1 and 2 for further cross-examination. The said prayer having been rejected, the petitioners have filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 13.12.2004 passed by the learned JMFC, Khurda.3. Mr. P.S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to change of the conducting counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid complaint case, P.Ws.1 and 2 could not be cross-examined and for that reason prayer was made to recall those witnesses for further cross-examination but the learned trial Court without appreciating the unavoidable difficu...
Birat Chandra Dagra Vs. Taurian Exim Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR344
ORDER1. Heard further argument on the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal as the preliminary issue and the same is decided in the following manner.2. Before dealing with that point of law, we may indicate that the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed challenging to the judgment delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in F.A.O. No. 270 of 2003. That was an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C') against the order granting temporary injunction to the plaintiffs-respondents under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C, vide Interim Application No. 12 of 2003 arising in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2003 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rairangpur. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has confirmed to that order of injunction and in the result dismissed the appeal. As against that judgment, this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.3. At the outset, Mr. Indrajit Mohanty, learned Counsel appe...
Madhusudan Rout Vs. Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC455; 100(2005)CLT31
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Application for a direction to the opposite parties to the settle the contract with him pursuant to tender call notice in Annexure-1 and direct the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 not to settle the contract with the Opposite Party No. 5.2. Case of the petition is the Opposite Party No. 2 invited sealed tender on 23.3.2004 for storage and safe custody of bicycles including two wheelers in the Railway premises at Cuttack Railway Station for a period of three years. The Tender Notice indicated that the intending bidders should submitted their offers along with earnest money of Rs. 20,974/- and to fulfil all other conditions while submitting tender. The tender was in twos parts, i.e., Technical Bid (Packet-A) and Financial Bid (Packet-B). The Technical Bid relates to eligibility such as, solvency, experience, etc. and the Financial Bid relates to the rates of offer. Further case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the said Tender Call Notice ...
Arss Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa and ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ori160
B.P. Das, J.1. The petitioner has tiled this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Consitition of India with the prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the O.Ps. to restore power supply to the petitioner's Industrial unit. without insisting upon the petitioner to bear the cost of constrution of service line. at its cost and a further direction of the O.Ps. to compensate the lose sustained by the petitioner during the period of disconnection of power supply and also not insist upon the petitioner to pay the energy charges for the period of disconnection and in the alternative to refund back the amount as interest by the petitioner for constitution of electric line along with interest within a stipulated period.2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ petition are as follows :The petitioner is a private limited Company and for the purpose of manufacturing metal chips etc. set up a stone crusher unit in the year 2000 in village Nityanandapur under Nihal Prasad Police St...
Natabara Mallik and 6 ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(I)OLR738
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.5.1987 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. No. 79/4 of 1986 convicting the appellant Nos. 1 to 5 namely, Natabar Mallik, Bata Krishna Mallik, Raghunath Baral, Kuturi @ Mayadhar Rout and Bula @ Bidyadhar Mallik under Sections 148 and 325 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I. for one month in respect of their conviction under Section 325/34 I.P.C. though no separate sentence was passed in respect of their conviction under Section 148 I.P.C. Appellant No. 5 namely, Bidyadhar Mallik was also convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced accordingly thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for fifteen days. On the other hand, appellant No. 6 Narayan Rout was convicted under Sections 148/324 I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for fifteen days in respect of the conviction under Section 324 I.P.C. tho...
D. Ramalingam Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(I)OLR740
S. Barman Roy, C.J.1. This appeal at the instance of appellant D. Ramalingam is directed against the judgment dated 28.2.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in connection with Sessions Case No. 78 of 1986 convicting the appellant under Section 304, Part II, IPC and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years.2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.4.1986 at about 11 P.M. P.W.5 Dhanalakshmi lodged an or complaint before the Jeypore town P.S. alleging, inter alia, that on that day itself P.W.5 Dhanalakshmi with her mother had gone to cinema hall to see movie. After watching the movie when they returned home the appellant being her grand-father scolded her asking as to why she was frequently going to watch movie. Thereafter an altercation took place between the two. During such altercation, mother of the informant came along with her husband and intervened. Both of them asked the appellant as to why he was scolding Dhanalakshmi. ...
Nilakantha Samantarai Vs. Brukodar Meher and 3 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(I)OLR739
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court in I.C.C. No. 12 of 1978. The respondents herein were prosecuted in the said complaint case on charges under Section 394/34, IPC and under Section 380/34, IPC. On conclusion of trial, learned trial Court acquitted the respondents. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the informant Nilakantha Samantarai has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal.2. Since this appeal was filed in this Court, more than 19 years time has elapsed. The occurrence in question took place some time in March, 1978. In the meantime more than a quarter of century has elapsed. It would be too much to reverse the finding of acquittal after passage of so many years. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal since more than a quarter of century has elapsed when the alleged occurrence took place. This appeal is pending in th...
Ghanashyama Sahu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR69
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed on 23.8.1991 by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No. 1469 of 1986 for the offence punishable under Section 380/34, I.P.C. It appears from the impugned order that for the default in appearance by the petitioner on 25.07.1991, order was passed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against him. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that because of communication gap between the petitioner and his engaged local counsel that he could not appear in the Court on that date. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any illegality in the order of issue of N.B.W.A. against the petitioner once he defaulted in appearance. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the said order by invoking the inherent power.3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid default of the petitioner was the first default a...
Ajaya Kumar Samal Vs. Jostnamayee Samal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ori145; 100(2005)CLT33; II(2005)DMC408
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. By this application under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the appellant seeks to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.2000 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 182 of 1998. By the impugned order, the prayer of the appellant for a decree of divorce against the respondent has been refused.2. The case of the appellant is that he married the respondent according to Hindu rites and customs on 7.6.1975 and both led their marital life till October 1975. It is alleged that on the Chauthi (fourth) night, for the first time the appellant met with the respondent and wanted to cohabit with her, but he failed as there was difficulty in cohabitation. He alleged that the respondent was an impotent. He further detected that the respondent had no female organ and had no capacity for cohabitation. Thereafter, he wanted to get the respondent examined by a physician, but she avoided the same and left his company. The further case of the appella...
Samal Barrage Employees' Union and Anr. and Mohan Chandra Sahu and Ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT452; 2005(II)OLR1
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. Both the writ applications filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India involve common questions of law and fact. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In all these writ applications, the petitioner, namely, Samal Barrage Employees' Union, seeks to assail the orders of retrenchment under Annexures-3, 4 and 5. By those orders, it has been directed to take steps to retrench the work-charged employees as per the list. Samal Barrage Employees' Union claims to be a registered trade union espousing the cause of work-charged employees of Samal Barrage. According to the said union, 1224 NMR employees of Samal Barrage approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in a batch of Original Applications (O.A. No. 1560(C) of 1993 and others) for regularisation of their services. The Tribunal disposed of all the Original Applications by a common judgment dated 02.06.1995, inter alia, with the following direction :-'(i) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »