Orissa Court January 2006 Judgments
Smt. Basantirani Nayak Vs. Biranchi Narayan Prasad Nayak and Three ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR372
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Heard.2. This petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., inter alia, submitting that certain vital facts were not brought to the notice of this Court while the petition for bail was moved. According to Mr. Pradhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Crl. Misc. Case No. 5650 of 2002 was filed by the opposite parties under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. suppressing the fact that two other similar petitions being Crl. Misc. Case Nos. 8092/2001 and 6433/2001 were filed and were dismissed by this Court. Mr. Pradhan, forcefully submits that as this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court, by order dated 19.7.2002 the accused persons were directed to be released on bail if they surrender before the Court below. It is prayed to cancel the bail order. In support of his submission, the decision in the case of Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1990 (2) CRIMES page 52 was relied upon.3. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties, at the other...
Tag this Judgment!Alekha Chandra Rout and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa and Four ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR370
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Mahendra Kumar Das, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. D. C. Mohanty, learned Government Advocate.2. In spite of the notice being served on the private respondent No. 5, none appears on his behalf.3. In this appeal under letters patent, the appellants seek to challenge the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 14768 of 2005 by which the writ petition was dismissed.4. The case of the appellants is that they are functioning as Sub-Wholesaler being duly licensed at different places of Rajnagar Block in the district of Kendrapara as described in paragraph-3 of the memorandum of appeal. It is pleaded by the appellants that their licences are deemed to be valid till 31.3.2006. They allege that the Collector of the district in violation of the guidelines annexed to the memorandum of appeal as Annexure-4 appointed the respondent No. 5 as a Sub-Wholesaler for distribution of kerosene for Chandi Baunsmul which is situated at a distance ...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.P. Dora Vs. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, Represented b ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT281; 2006(I)OLR240
A.K. Samantaray, J.1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the rejection of his representation for withdrawal of voluntary retirement application and has come with the prayer for quashing the said order of rejection (Annexure-4) and the order of his relief from service (Annexure-7).2. The factual backdrop leading to the filing of this writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Accounts Officer under Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1) on 4.2.1986 and in course of time he was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer, Class-ll on 27.4.1993 and was again promoted to the post of Accounts Officer, Class-I with effect from 3.7.1998 and he also held the post of Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer from 24.4.1996 to 18.9.1997 vide Government of Orissa, Commerce & Transport Department Notification No. RT-IV-Corpn.49/96-12467/T dated 26.8.1996. In course of time, the Government of O...
Tag this Judgment!Bijay Nayak and 20 ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR367
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 28.3.2005 and 22.6.2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in ICC No. 397 of 2004/G.R. Case No. 677 of 2004 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.2. One Ambi Mukhi lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-charge, Banth P.S. in the district of Bhadrak alleging therein that on 2.6.2004 at about 11.00 A.M. the petitioners came to her house and damaged the same. Again on 4,6.2004 while she was constructing the house with bamboo and straw, the petitioners armed with weapons attacked and scolded her by obscene language. The said F.I.R. was registered as Banth P.S. Case No. 38 of 2004 and investigation started. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 294, 354, 506 and 149 of the Penal Code against some of the accused p...
Tag this Judgment!Nityananda Mohanty Vs. Commissioner of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR380
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application challenges the legality of the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities in Annexure-5 and 6.2. The case of the petitioner is that the Mouza in which the disputed land situates came within the purview of the consolidation operation in the 1979-80. The disputed land appertains to consolidation plot No. 296 under Chakka No. 106 and Khata No. 172 in Mouza Bisipada. The said plot was recorded in the name of one Mathurananda Mohanty, the predecessors of the petitioner and opposite party No. 32. After closure of the consolidation operation, notification under Section 41 was published on 19.7.1982 and patta was issued to the petitioner on 22.7.1983. After obtaining patta, the petitioner developed the plot and remained in enjoyment thereof for almost a decade. In the year, 1993, the opposite parties 3 to 31 filed a Revision before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack under Section 37(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Pre...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Behera, Provident Fund Inspector Vs. Orissa Industries (P) Lt ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR415
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.01.1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cuttack acquitting the respondents from charge under Section 14 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.2. On the aforesaid charge the respondents were tried in 2(C) CC No. 286 of 1982. The case was instituted in the year 1982 before the learned lower Court and the judgment of acquittal was passed in the year 1989. Since then more than 17 years' time has elapsed. After passage of so many years, I am of the opinion that it will amount to travesty of justice to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.3. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. P.A. Rajan Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1980
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela on 2-3-1988 in S. T. No. 46/18 of 1986 is under challenge.2. Respondent was the sole accused and was charged with the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. Case of the prosecution is that Mausumi Ghose (P.W. No. 1), an unmarried girl reading in second year in the Vedvyas College, Rourkela was residing in the railway colony together with her parents, brothers and sister. She fell in love with one P. G. Chandrashekhar (P. W.4), a co-employee of her father and brother in the same department notwithstanding the fact that said P. G. Chandrasekhar had a living wife and two children. The relationship between P. W. 1 and P. W. 4 was not appreciated and approved by the family members and she was asked to dissociate with P. W. 4. P. W. 1 declined to abide by that command and therefore she was not permitted to stay inside the quarter but was permitted to construct a hut and stay within the campus of that qu...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Talkies (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Collector-cum-district Magistr ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori92
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. Petitioner No. 2 is the Director of petitioner No. 1. Both the petitioners have filed this writ application challenging the order dated 25-10-2005 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jaipur in annexure-7 granting permission to the opposite party No. 7 for running a Cinema Hall in Jaipur Road.2. The case of the petitioners is that opposite party No. 7 submitted an application for grant of license to run a. Cinema Hall within vicinity of Jajpur Road Town/ Vyasnagar Municipality Area/Kalinga Nagar Development Authority Area in contravention of the provisions of Orissa Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1964 and, therefore, his application could not have been entertained for grant of license. It is also alleged in the writ application that procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules had not been followed at all before either granting permission to the opposite party No. 7 for construction of the Cinema Hall or for grant of license to run a Cinema ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadasiba Pattnaik Vs. Dibakar Pandey and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT693; 2006(I)OLR272
M.M. Das, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.1.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Election Appeal No. 13 of 2003 which was preferred by Opp.Party No. 1.2. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti of Jharigaon from Chitabeda Grama Panchayat in the district of Nabarangpur. Opp.Party No. 1 who lost the election filed an election dispute being MJC No. 10 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabarangpur. The main contention of opp.party No. 1 in the said election dispute was that the petitioner having two spouses on the date of his nomination, was ineligible to file his nomination and contest the election for being elected as the member of the Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner in his written statement/counter filed in the said election dispute, denied the allegation that he has two wives and asserted that one Bhagyalaxmi Patnaik is his only wife. It appears from the record that ...
Tag this Judgment!Biratunga S.C.S. Ltd. (Mini Bank), Represented by Its Secretary Vs. Sa ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori97; 101(2006)CLT309
M.M. Das, J.1. The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for quashing the orders dated 29.7.2005 and 2.12.2005 under Annexures-1 and 2 respectively passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission') in a consumer dispute case bearing C.D. Case No. 56 of 2004. The opp. party no. 1 filed C.D. Case No. 56 of 2004 before the State Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P. Act') claiming an amount of Rs. 65, 417/ lying in deposit in his saving account with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum and a further compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- for undergoing suffering, harassment and mental agony against the present writ petitioner and the opp. party no. 2. The opp, party no. 1 as complainant alleged that he opened a Savings Bank Account bearing S.B. Account No. 16.1 with the petitioner which is a Mini Bank sponsored by the United Puri-N...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »