Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2005(107)FLR719]
I.M. Qudussi, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 7th January 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in separate O.As. filed by the petitioners No. 1 to 4 as O.As. 748 of 1994, 749 of 1994, 750 of 1994 and 751 of 1994, by which all the O.As. have been dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, called for the names of suitable candidates for the post of Lower Division Clerk in his office on ad hoc basis. The Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Bhubaneswar was requested to sponsor the names of at least 40 number of suitable candidates. In the prescribed proforma of notification of vacancies, the age limit was mentioned as 18 to 25 years, the upper age limit being relaxable by 5 years in case of S.C. and ST. candidates. The request to sponsor names was made vide letter dated 4.6.1991. Thereafter, according to the statement, which came through t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT530
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Assailing the award dated 21st November 2002 passed by the Second Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1995 the claimants have filed M.A.C.A. No. 89/2003. The same award has been assailed by the Insurance Company in M.A.C.A. No. 203/2003. As the facts and points of law involved in both the appeals are same, both the matters were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The claimants filed an application before the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, inter alia, stating that their son Maheswar Sahoo met with an accident on 3.11.2004 and succumbed to the injury sustained. They alleged that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. ORM-6765 and accordingly they claimed compensation for the death of their son.3. On receiving notice the Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement denying its liability to pay any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT370; [2005(107)FLR975]; (2006)ILLJ494Ori
P. K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner, Orissa Irrigators Union has approached this Court with the following prayer:'Under the circumstances, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to :Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why the order of the opp. parties retrenching the service of the Irrigators shall not be quashed and if the opp. parties fail to show cause or insufficient cause make the said Rule be absolute :And further in the alternate direct the Labour Commissioner Orissa, Bhubaneswar, the appropriate Govt. under the Industrial Disputes Act to conduct the inquiry whether the action taken by the Commissioner CADA by retrenching irrigators under Section 25-F is legal or justified and the CADA organization is a seasonal one or not:That the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass appropriate order quashing the order of refusal in Annexure-7 and further direct the opp. party No. 5 to make the reference on the basis of the demands within the time as sp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT208
N. Prusty, J.1. The petitioner being charged under Sections 376, 417, 341 and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code was convicted and sentenced under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the order/judgment dated 29.8.2003 of the Learned C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuapada in Sessions Case No. 25/2 of 2003. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year subject to set off under Section 428, Cr.P.C. Challenging the above said order, by mistake the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2003 before this Court, which is not the proper forum. When this Court took up the matter by order dated 30.10.2003 it was directed to return the case to the petitioner (appellant) with a liberty to file the same before the appropriate Court. Accordingly, the petitioner presented/filed appeal before the Learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nuapada along with an application for condonation of delay, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT447
1. The above two appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') are by the claimant and the State respectively as against the award passed on 23.12.1997 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dharamgarh in M.J.C. No. 40 of 1996 on the basis of reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector. For the sake of convenience, we describe the appellant in First Appeal No. 99 of 1998 as the Claimant and the appellant in First Appeal No. 157 of 1999 as the Opposite Party.2. Both the appeals are heard analogously on consent of both the parties and disposed of by this common judgment.3. Ac. 0.41 decimals of land was acquired from the possession of the claimant as per the Government's Notification No. 24580 dated 29.5.1993 published in Extraordinary Gazette No. 871 dated 3.7.1993. The said land was acquired for canal purpose under Upper Indravati Project. Opposite Party determined compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) per acre and passed the award under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : IV(2005)BC357; 100(2005)CLT65; 2005(II)OLR309; [2006]67SCL342(NULL)
ORDER1. The petitioner calls in question the notice issued to her under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). From the said notice under Annexure-1, it appears that a cash credit limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a demand loan of Rs. 1,19,000/- were advanced by the opp. party-Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Branch to one M/s. Utkal Udyog and the petitioner was a guarantor to the said loan. It also appears that in addition to the letter of guarantee executed by the petitioner in favour of the said Bank, the petitioner also created equitable mortgage over her immovable properties in favour of the said Bank. The said mortgage was offered as a co-lateral security for the loan advanced to M/s. Utkal Udyog. It also further appears from Annexure-1 that the said loan was not repaid by the Principal Debtor and on the date of receipt of the notice under Annexure-1, i.e., on 5.7.2004, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2005(II)OLR383
B.P. Das, J. 1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 27.8.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Angul in Probate Misc. Case No. 227 of 1999 dismissing the application of the petitioner praying to include the properties situated at Talcher, Pallahara, Telkoi, Deogarh and Rajkot in the probate proceeding.2. The brief facts as narrated in the revision application are as follows :The petitioner initiated a proceeding under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act before the District Judge, Dhenkanal, on 12.10.1999 for probate of the Will dated 16.1.1999 executed by late Kanchan Gauri Narshi Das. Kanchan Gauri Narshi Das died issueless on 6.6.1999. The petitioner as the sole executor-cum-beneficiary under the Will instituted the proceeding for Probate of the aforesaid Will. The said case was registered as Misc. Case No. 227 of 1999. Under the Will, the properties of late Kanchan Gauri Narshi Das located at Talcher, Angul, Rajkot, Pallahara, Deogarh and Telkoi have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT228
B.P. Das, J.1. The petitioners, ten in number, have filed this Writ Petition challenging the validity of the compulsory acquisition of their lands under the emergency procedure and prayed to quash the Notification dated 22.1.2004 issued therefor by the State Government under Section 4(1) read with Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') under Annexure-4.2. The brief facts as narrated in this Writ Petition tend to reveal that petitioner Nos. 8 to 10 are the original owners of the lands, as detailed in the Writ Petition, in Mouza-paisa under Chauliaganj P.S. of Cuttack Sadar Tahasil and petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 are the purchasers of the said lands and they have been residing in the houses constructed on their respective patches of land since last thirty years. The aforesaid area is known as Kaibalya Vihar. The State Government in Revenue Department has issued the notification under Annexure-4 to acquire the aforesaid lands for construct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2005(II)OLR317
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.1. In this appeal the two appellants, namely, Siba Mohanta (appellant No. 1) and Jadumani alias Jadu Mohanta (appellant No. 2) seek to challenge the judgment dated 13.11.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T.Case No. 14 of 1987 convicting both the appellants under Section 376/34, IPC and sentencing them thereunder to suffer R.I. for 7 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, and in default, to suffer R.I. for one month more.2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.2.1986 at about 7 P.M. P.W.2 Alekh Patra being the husband of the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar alleging, inter alia, that on 16.2.1986 when his wife being P.W. 1 Kusum Patra was going towards the house of her parents to bring some rice, the two appellants appeared at the scene and forcibly raped her. After the said incident P.W. 1 returned home and narrated the incident to him. When P.W.2 went to the Police Station to lod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2005Ori167; 100(2005)CLT163
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Writ Application [W.P.(C) No. 5342 of 2005] is directed against the order dated 15.4.2005 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in C.M.A. No. 62 of 2005 directing the petitioner to supply soft drinks against the advances received from the opposite party.2. Before examining the legality of the impugned order I feel it necessary to refer to the background of the case. The opposite party has filed Civil Suit No. 83 of 2004 in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur praying for a decree declaring that the agency/distributorship of the plaintiff with the defendant No. 1 -company subsists for the district of Jagatsinghpur and for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from termination distributorship of the plaintiff for Jagatsinghpur district and restraining the defendant No. 1 from appointing any new dealers for Jagatsinghpur district. The plaintiff-opposite party also prayed for decree...
Tag this Judgment!