Orissa Court September 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.
Niharendu Bhuyan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC467; 2005(II)OLR588
R.N. Biswal, J. 1. This CRLMC arises out of a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 12.5.2005 passed by the J.M.F.C, Salipur in I.C.C. Case No. 108 of 2003 and to direct him to allow the petitioners to further cross-examine P.W.1, record their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and to recall the N.B.W. of arrest issued against them.2. The petitioners faced trial for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in I.C.C. Case No. 108 of 2003 before the J.M.F.C., Salipur on the complaint made by Subodh Kumar Bhuyan (opp. party No. 2). The complainant was examined in chief on 23.8.2004 as P.W.1 and on the prayer of the accused persons (petitioners), his cross-examination was deferred to 23.2.2005, on which date the advocate for the complainant filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to re-examine P.W.1. The prayer being allowed he was re-examined and was cross-examined in part on behalf of the accused persons. Furt...
Tapan Kumar Prusty and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR714]; 2005(II)OLR610
I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 2. 11. 1998 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 2844 (C) of 1998 filed by the petitioners dismissing the same as barred by limitation. The impugned order has also been passed ex parte in absence of the petitioners and their counsel.2. The petitioners had filed the O.A. on 19.9.1997 claiming salary in the untrained scale instead of stipend which they were paid during the period of C.T. training. The training was completed on 31.3. 1996. The O.A. was dismissed on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, : 1997ECR785(SC) in which the Apex Court has held that the law of limitation has to be applied with allits rigor prescribed by Statutes and Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. As the case of the petitioners was squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›