Orissa Court May 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.
Bira Kishore Das Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR596]
I.M. Qudussi, J.1. The present Writ Petitions have been filed against the judgment dated 18.3.2004 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 907(C) of 2003. The Tribunal while disposing of the O.A. quashed the order of punishment i.e., dismissal from service of Bira Kishore Das-petitioner in WPC No. 8871 of 2004 and further directed that he shall be deemed to be under Suspension from the date he was relieved from his respective post on issue of the dismissal order and a proceeding under Rule 15 of the Orissa Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (for short 'the Rules') be initiated against him and further ordered that he shall be entitled to subsistence allowance at the prescribed rate from the deemed date of suspension.2. At the very outset it is necessary to mention here that no departmental proceeding against the delinquent was conducted and the enquiry was dispensed with under Rule 18(ii) of the Rules read with 2nd pro...
Bimal Krushna Tripathy Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR293
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. The petitioner who is an accused in Nabarangpur P.S.Case No. 137 of 1996 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 395 of 1996 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nabarangpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 3.11.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nabarangpur under Section 311, Cr.P.C. on the date of delivery of judgment, summoning the material witnesses i.e. the then Employment Exchange Officer and the then I.I.C., Nabarangpur P.S. and calling for the required primary document allegedly to fill up the lacuna of the prosecution case.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Establishment Officer, Collectorate, Nabarangpur lodged a First Information Report at Nabarangpur P.S. which was treated as Nabarangpur P.S. Case No. 137 of 1996, corresponding to G.R.Case No. 395 of 1996 in the Court of learned S.D...
Pravakar Sarangi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR86
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Although the matter is listed for admission, on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 467, 120-B of the I.P.C. in I.C.C. Case No. 1989 of 2004 and issued process against the accused petitioner asking him to appear in Court. On receipt of the summons the petitioner through his counsel filed a petition under Section 205(1), Cr.P.C. to dispense with his personal attendance and to allow him to appear in Court through his counsel. Learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar by order dated 7.1.2005 rejected the said prayer. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the said order dated 7.1.2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. Case No. 1989 of 2004.4. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner s...
Avatar Singh Marwah Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(I)OLR694
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.2. The order dated 9.3.2005 passed by the Collector, Angul in Confiscation Proceeding No. 4 of 2005 initiated under Section 6(A)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is under challenge.3. As it appears from the record that the vehicle in question was carrying kerosene in the fuel tank which is said to be used as fuel for the vehicle. Essential commodity (kerosene) and the vehicle were seized. After seizure of the vehicle, an application was filed for release of the same. The Collector, Angul in the impugned order allowed prayer subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pledge Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the Collector, Angul in the shape of Demand draft which will be released/confiscated as per analysis report. Second proviso to Section 6(A)(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides that in the case of any vehicle used for the carriage of goods for hire, the own...
Shri Bankim Behari Parida Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR260
M.M. Das, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for an order quashing Annexure-11 i.e. letter of the Tahasildar, Angul demanding enhanced market value and interest for execution of the lease agreement and has also prayed for a direction to the opp. party No. 3, i.e. Tahasildar, Angul to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner under Annexure-9 to the writ application.2. The petitioner's case is that he is an ex-serviceman who took part in 1962 Indo-China War. The State Government formulated a scheme for leasing out land in favour of ex-serviceman who took part in the said Indo-China War. Accordingly, Town Lease Case No. 66-61/62 was initiated by the opp. party No. 3- Tahasildar for allotting a piece of land measuring Ac. 0.20 decimals in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the orders passed in the said lease case, the petitioner deposited the amount of premium as directed, in full. The last of such payment was made on 2.5.1989 as per Annexure-1. In the letter d...
Zerina Marines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ori66
M.M. Das, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which undertakes civil contract work. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the opp. parties in closing the contract awarded in its favour for 'excavation of Right Bank Canal including structures of Rengali Irrigation Project RD.74.00 Km. to 79.00 Km (Reach-III)' under Agreement No. 39-F2/98 executed by Opp. Party No. 2, as has been intimated to the petitioner by Opp. Party No. 2 under his letter dated 4-7-2002 under Annexure-18 to the writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that after the above contract work was awarded to it on execution of the agreement referred to above, as the work was to be completed by 28-1-2000, the petitioner immediately mobilized the men, material and machineries and started execution of the said work i.e. excavation of the canal. After proceeding to execute the work to a certain extent, the petitioner found that It was not po...
Kripal Springs (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Andhra Bank and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas691(Orissa)
1. Heard Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitionrs and Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. In this writ petition the petitioners challenge the provisions of Sections 13 and 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for short 'the Act 2002'), as well as the notice dated July 2, 2003, issued under Section 13(2) of the said Act, annexure 11 to the writ petition.3. During the course of hearing, Mr. Rath learned Counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice that in the meanwhile, the opposite party bank has filed O.A. No. 24 of 2004 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack, for recovery of the very amount, for which the impugned notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been issued to the petitioners. By our order dated July 27, 2004, this Court indicated that the provisions of the Act, 2002 have been upheld in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India : AIR2004SC2371 with a rider ...
Dr. Gourahari Panda Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-12-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)OLR124
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner is a retired Lecturer. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service w.e.f., 31.5.2005 from Sri Sri Dhabaleswar College of Science and Technology, Bali. His only grievance is that the authorities are adopting dilly dally tactics in payment of his arrear salary, G.P.F. amount, differential U.G.C. salary and other service benefits legally payable to him. It appears that the petitioner has already approached the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Orissa, by filing a representation on 2.4.2005, vide Annexure-4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of receipt of the said representation, no action has been taken by opposite party No.1. Payment of pension and other emoluments to a retired employee is no more a bounty, it is bounden duty of the employer to take expeditious steps for disbursement of the amount legally payable to a retired employee.3. This being the position of law. ...
Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs. Ramesh Kumar Bhatta
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-11-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)29; IV(2005)BC210; 99(2005)CLT753
A.K. Parichha, J.1. Opp. Party as complainant has filed I.C.C. Case No. 113 of 2004 before the Learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'the N.I. Act') against the petitioner. Learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh after recording statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. took cognizance of that offence and directed issue of process against the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the said Order dated 27.9.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh.2. Mr. J. Katikia, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of cognizance is unsustainable as the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200, Cr.P.C. does not reveal the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. According to him, unless prima-facie case is revealed from the statements of the complaint and witnesses recorde...
Ekbal Khan @ Iqual Khan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-11-2005
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT49
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding in G.R. Case No. 605(A) of 1991 pending in the court of Learned SDJM, Bhadrak.2. On the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 1.4.1991 by one Santosh Kumar Bagaria, Partner of M/s National Trading Corporation, Bhadrak Town, P.S. Case No. 165 of 1991 was registered by the Inspector in-charge and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 457, 382, 436, 307, 427, 149, IPC against 18 accused persons. Learned SDJM, Bhadrak took cognizance of those offences an directed issue of process against the accused persons. Out of the 18 accused persons, 8 accused persons entered appearance, but the rest accused persons including the petitioner remained as absconders, as a result of which the case was split up against the absconding accused persons and a separate file G.R. Case No. 605(A) of 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »