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.
Lakhiwinder Singh Vs. Minna Villi Doriya Choudhury and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ori180; 100(2005)CLT460; 2005(II)OLR98
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 24.1.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Baragarh in T.S. No. 37 of 1996 permitting the Defendant No. 1 to be examined after examination of three witnesses on behalf of the defendants.2. The petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of contract or in the alternative for refund of consideration money. After closer of the evidence from the side of the plaintiff-petitioner, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants. After examination of the aforesaid three witnesses, the defendant No. 1 filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief. The question arose as to whether the defendant No. 1 could be examined and cross-examined after examination of three other witnesses from the side of the defendants. An objection was filed before the trial Court by the petitioner stating that the three witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants-opposite parties without obtaining perm...
Chandan @ Ananda Jena and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR122
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Though the matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioners are all accused in G.R. Case No. 593 of 1999 of the Court learned JMFC, Pattamundai. They have filed this application Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 12.9.2002 framing charge against them for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323/34, IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there has been an amicable settlement between the petitioners and opp.party No. 2 consequent upon which the opp.party No. 2 is living happily with her husband-petitioner No. 1. He submits that when the parties have amicably sorted out their differences and are living in cordial terms, continuance of the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 593 of 1999 will not only be abuse of process of the Court, but will also ca...
Dr. Muralilal Gupta Vs. Republic of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT513; 2005CriLJ3784; 2005(II)OLR170
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge framed against the petitioner in S.P.E. No. 1 of 1998 of the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge (Vig.), Bhubaneswar.2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 120-B/420, IPC in SPE No. 1 of 1998 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge (Vig.), Bhubaneswar. After entering appearance in that case, the petitioner filed an application under Section 239, Cr.P.C. for his discharge. Learned Addl. Special Judge (CBI), Bhubaneswar, by order dated 2.5.2003 rejected the said prayer of the petitioner and framed charge under Section 120-B/420, I.P.C. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present application to quash the said order dated 2.5.2003.3. Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the materials produced by the prosecution do not constitute any case under Sections 120-B/42...
Sasanka Alias Susanta Karmakar and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT523; 2005(II)OLR155
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of the cognizance order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack in G.R.Case No. 1522 of 1999.Basing on an F.I.R. lodged by opp. party No. 2, Lalbag, P.S.Case No. 214 of 1999 was registered and after investigation in that case charge sheet was submitted for offences under Sections 436, 294, 506, 427, 379, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'I.P.C.'). On perusing the charge sheet and the materials produced by the prosecution learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack by order dated 6.5.2002 took cognizance of the above noted offences and directed issue of process against the petitioners. The present application has been filed for quashing the said order of cognizance.2. The first submission of Mr. R.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the materials produced by the prosecution do not reveal prima facie case for the offences under Sections 43...
Kanhu Behera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(II)OLR386
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the order dated 12.6.2003 passed by the 'learned J.M.F.C., Narasinghpur in G.R.Case No. 3 of 2003 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201/34, IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.Act.2. Basing on an FIR lodged by one Basanta Kumar Pradhan, Kanpur P.S.Case No. 2 of 2003 was registered, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201/34, IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.Act. Learned J.M.F.C., Narasinghpur after perusing the materials produced by the prosecution, took cognizance of the above noted offences and directed issue of process against the accused persons including the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order of cognizance dated 12.6.2003.3. Mr. S. N. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Giridhari Mallick and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC677; 2007ACJ567; 101(2006)CLT533
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th August, 1993 passed by the Learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Northern Division), Sambalpur in Misc. (A) Case No. 29 of 1989 (SN) directing the present appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the claimants-respondents.2. The claimants-respondents are the legal heirs of deceased Sanatan Lakra. The case of the claimants is that on 11.2.1989 at about 7.30 P.M. the deceased was coming from the sector side to Rourkela Town by a Rajdoot Motor Cycle bearing registration No. ORE 9432. Near Bisra Chhak the offending vehicle bearing registration No. OAO 1565 being driven rashly and negligently dashed against the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained serious injuries on his head and body. The deceased was taken to R.G.H. (Hospital) whereafter he was shifted to I.G.H. (Hospital) but he died on the way. In the accident the motor cycle was also completely damaged.3. The owner of...
Smt. Sandhya Rout and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT45; 2005(II)OLR77
ORDER1. Heard Mr. BCC. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kar learned Addl. Standing Counsel.2. The facts of the case reveal that one Binod Bihari Das having made an application for settlement of Government land being a landless person, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar-Opp.Party No. 3 in the writ petition initiated W.L. Case No. 2129 of 1979 and after following the procedure as prescribed under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), settled a piece of land measuring Ac. 1.00 situated in mouza Malipada under Khata No. 428 Plot No. 149, in his favour. Accordingly, lease of the above land was granted in favour of the said Binod Bihari Das. The said land was subsequently mutated in favour of the said Binod Bihari Das in the record of right and he was recorded as an occupancy tenant over plot No. 149/1172 under Khata No. 365/ 10 measuring Ac. 1.00.3. It appears from the writ petition that the said Binod Bihari Das through his Power...
Sri Madhusudan Mohanty Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-02-2005
Reported in: 100(2005)CLT15; [2005(106)FLR726]
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the Order dated 7.10.2004 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 800 of 2002.2. The brief facts of the cases are that the petitioner had challenged before the Tribunal against the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Animal House Attendant in the Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar. The following two grounds were taken by him in the Original Application :-(i) Respondent No. 4 is not eligible to be considered being over aged, and(ii) He being an employee working as a Peon-cum-Safaiwala with a salary in an extramural project, he is not entitled for condonation of age as per the Rules.3. In the counter affidavit before the Tribunal it has been averred by Respondent No. 1 that to fill up the posts of Animal House Attendants in Grade-D category, notification was made inviting application from eligible departmental candidates as well as retrenched ex-project employees of ex...
Dayanidhi Behera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-02-2005
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR110
ORDERA.K. Samantaray, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties.3. This petition under Section 482. Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 175 of 1999 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Khandapara in respect of this petitioner. The fact giving rise to the petition is that on the F.I.R. lodged against this petitioner and 15 others, and Khandapara P.S. Case No. 92 of 1999 was registered and subsequently after investigation by the I.O. the I.O. submitted charge sheet excluding this petitioner and two others. But after submission of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate without any valid ground and without any material on record, took cognizance of the offences and directed issue of process against this petitioner and two others arraying them as the accused persons in the said Q....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›