Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT53; 2005(II)OLR618
A.S. Naidu, J. 1. The judgment dated 13.8.2002 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi, in Title Appeal No. 17/95 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Parlakhemundi, in T.S. No. 25/92 and remanding the case to the lower Court for retrial is assailed by the plaintiff in this appeal filed under Order 43 Rule l(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The appellant as plaintiff filed T.S. No. 25/92 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi, inter alia, praying for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The subject matter of the suit is a Bungalow-cum-residence locally called as 'Dewan Bungalow' situated in Paralakhemundi Municipal, Ward No. 16, Municipal Survey No. 1146 appertaining to Sabik Plot No. 105 of Mouza Kaviti Khaspa, measuring Ac. 2.094 cents. The suit premises originally belonged to Ex-Maharaja of Parlakhemundi Late Krushna Chandra Gajapati Narayan Deo. After his death in the year 1975 Gopina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT537; 2006CriLJ462; 2005(II)OLR714
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to issue direction to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar Division to treat the said complaint being Annexure-5 as an FIR and to investigate the same and also for issuing direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar to direct the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division or the Officer-in-Charge of Capital Police Station, Bhubaneswar to treat Annexure-5 as an FIR and also for issuing further direction to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi to investigate into the said allegations.2. In the complaint it has been inter alia alleged by the petitioner-complainant that the opposite parties being Shri Naveen Patnaik, Chief Minister of O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2005(II)OLR798
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment dated 24th February, 1990 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar is assailed by the opposite party-appellants in this appeal filed Under Section 44 (2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act.2. Respondents 1 to 5 as petitioners filed an application before the Addl. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack Zone. Cuttack Under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951 (for short O.H.R.E. Act, 1951) which was registered as O.A. No. 16/83, inter aita, praying to declare the Institution of Nrusinghanath Mahaprabhu Bije Archulli, Post Office- Somepur, District- Cuttack as a public deity being managed by Non-hereditary Trust Board and its lands as belonging to public religious endowments. According to the said respondents the foundation of the said Institution has been lost in antiquity and the villagers have been managing its affairs treating it as a public deity. The villagers out of their own contribu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT555; 2005(II)OLR779
M.M. Das, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against an order dated 1.7.2005 of the Learned Single Judge passed in O.J.C. No. 17341 of 2001.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 164 of 1979 against the appellant to set aside a sale deed, which was executed and registered by one Gajendra Acharya in favour of the appellant with respect to the 'A' Schedule property of the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. The grounds taken in the plaint were that the sale deed was obtained by playing fraud and coercing the vendor. The appellant's case was that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 realizing that the suit would be dismissed got a compromise petition filed in the suit, which according to the appellant was obtained by the respondent No. 1 by playing fraud on the appellant. However, on the Court causing an enquiry under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, held that the compromise was lawful and the same was made a part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT651
M.M. Das, J.1. This appeal at the instance of three appellants, namely, appellant No. 1-Bharat Khatei, appellant No. 2-Bharat Swain and appellant No. 3-Kabuli Swain, is directed against the judgment dated 13.8.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No. 90 of 1997 convicting the three appellants under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentencing them thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.5.1994 at about 9.00 P.M., P.W. 10-Bijay Kumar Nayak appeared at Puri Sadar P.S. and lodged a written complaint alleging, inter alia, that on that day about 4.00 P.M. he along with his father and his elder brother-Raj Kishore Nayak (since deceased) were going to their land near village Barana with a bullock cart loaded with manure. All on a sudden, they heard the hullah from the side of the road connecting Barana village and they saw the appellants and many others named therein being armed with Bhali, Pharsa, Thenga and other weapons of offence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT257; [2006(109)FLR265]; 2005(II)OLR637
A.K. Parichha, J.1. In this application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order of transfer dated 10/12.2.2004, Annexure-3, charge-sheet dated 22.2.2004, Annexure-8 and the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer in the said proceeding, Annexures-9 and 10.2. Petitioner while working as Senior Crane Operator-I in Rourkela Steel Plant applied for his transfer to the newly opened unit of Nilachal Ispat Nigam Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as 'NINL') situated at Duburi on the ground that his brother met a premature death and that he has to look after the family of his deceased brother. His representation was allowed and by virtue of order dated 6.8.2002, Annexure-2, he joined at the Duburi unit of NINL. While working there, he was served with office order dated 10/12.2.2004, Annexure-3, transferring him to Dolvi unit of NINL. Petitioner made a representation on 14.2.2004, Annexure-4 requesting the Deputy General Manager (P & A) to canc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT96; 2005(II)OLR628
A.K. Parichha, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner, who is the elected member of Zone No. 26 of Puri Zilla Parishad, has challenged the order dated 3.4.2004 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in Election Misc. Case No. 70 of 2002 allowing the amendment of the election petition.2. Petitioner was elected as a Member of Zone No. 26 of Puri Zilla Parishad in the election held in the month of February, 2002. Opposite party No. 1, who was a candidate for the said Zone and was defeated in the election, filed an election dispute bearing Election Misc. Case No. 70 of 2002 before the learned District Judge, Puri challenging the validity of election of the present petitioner on the ground that he resorted to corrupt practice by illegally utilizing the Government machinery for putting pressure on the voters; distributing huge amount of money and materials through agents to allure the voters, obstructed the voters of their rival candidates by use of physical force and int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT253
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.8.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O. A. No. 391 of 2003 dismissing the said O. A. which was filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of termination from service dated 2.7,2003 contained in Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as a contingent sweeper in Kuchei Sub Post Office. In the year 1993 he had applied to the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Baripada Central Sub-Division, Baripada for appointment in the post of GDS/EDA (Extra Departmental Agent). He was provided with an application form which was submitted under the instructions of the ASPOs with the direction to apply through the same by 12.8.2002. Basing on the said application, the petitioner was provisionally selected vide order dated 16.8.2002 and was instructed to undergo training on the date and ven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 102(2006)CLT540
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Heard Mr. Das, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dutta, Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party.2. The order dated 21.8.2003 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in O.S. No. 725 of 1999-I allowing the petition filed by the wife and directing to hold DNA test at her cost is assailed in this writ petition.3. Admittedly O.S. No. 725 of 1999-I was filed by the opposite party-wife, inter alia, praying to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party by a decree of divorce and for other consequential reliefs. The grounds on which the aforesaid relief is sought for is basically two fold i.e., cruelty and desertion by the husband. A written statement has been filed repudiating the averments made. In course of the proceeding a petition was filed by the petitioner-wife to direct DNA test of the blood of the husband and the child on the ground that the husband is disowning the child. Perusal of the entire plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2006(1)OLR125
ORDER1. The opposite party No,4 is deleted from the array of the parties. Petitioner is directed to correct the designation of opposite party No.2 during the course of the day.2. Heard Mr. S.C. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department.3. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 21.07.2004 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.942 (C) of 2004 filed by the petitioner in which she had prayed for arrear differential salary from 01.01.1996 to 28.02.2002. The Tribunal while directing to dispose of the representation, has made it clear that the petitioner shall be entitled only to get her dues from the date, three years prior to filing of the O.A., and the arrears for the rest of the period is barred by time.4. The petitioner is still in service. She had demanded to get arrears of differential salary. In fact, she has got salary regularly, but the differenti...
Tag this Judgment!