Orissa Court October 2006 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.
Dilip Kumar Barik Vs. Smt. Usharani Barik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ori83; 102(2006)CLT813
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard both the parties, perused the evidence on record and considered the argument advanced. The judgment is as follows:2. Appellant is the husband and Respondent is the wife. That relationship is not disputed. Their marriage was solemnized in May, 1996 and a son was born out of the wedlock on 14.12.1997. As per the order of the Court in an earlier proceeding in C.P. No. 142 of 1997, that child is getting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300 per month.3. The Respondent wife had filed C.P. No. 142 of 1997 claiming maintenance for herself and the minor child in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act 1956'). The Appellant-husband had also filed C.P. No. 115 of 1998 seeking the relief for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act 1955'). In the case filed by the wife, her allegation was of ill-treatment and cruelty by the husband as well as the ...
Firoz Khan and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented Through Its ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ori81; 103(2007)CLT168; I(2007)DMC626
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. The Petitioners in the present writ petition have challenged the legality of the order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Marriage Officer, Balasore-Opp. party No. 4 in Proceeding No. 33 of 2006, refusing to register the marriage between the Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 under the Special Marriage Act., 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts as averred in the writ petition reveal that the Petitioner no. 2 is a French National and had been visiting Orissa on the basis of an education Visa since last two years for undergoing a course in Odissi Dance. During such stay at Bhubaneswar in Orissa, she developed acquaintance with the Petitioner No. 1 who is an Indian National which culminated in a proposal of marriage between them, with approval of their respective parents. It further transpires that the Petitioner no. 2 came to India in June, 2006 on the strength of a Tourist Visa issued by Opp. party no. 1, which was endorsed on her French Passport (Annexure-1). I...
Sri Balmiki Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT164; 2007(I)OLR8
M.M. Das, J.1. The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Karapada Grama Panchayat in the district of Ganjam. Earlier the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 375 of 2005 praying therein to declare the provisions of Section 24 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') so far as it relates to the vote of 'No Confidence Motion' against the Sarpanch to be ultra vires to the Constitution with other ancillary prayers.2. This Court in the case of. Bhagabat Sahoo v. Collector, Angul Ors. 2005 (1) C.L.R. 606 while examining a similar question held Section 24(2)(c) to be intra vires and dismissed a batch of cases along with the said case. Accordingly, by order dated 21.7.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 375 of 2005 filed by the petitioner, this Court dismissed the writ application with the observation that the petitioner is not precluded to pursue his legal remedy on the consequence of the resolution passed on the 'No Confidence Motion'.3. The petitioner has now preferred ...
Rourkela Proofing Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: (2007)103CALLT88; (2007)207CTR(Ori)656
B.P. Das, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt. 17th Aug., 2000 passed by the Asstt. CIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela-OP No. 1 under Section 251 of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act', hereinafter) for the asst. yr. 1989-90, vide Annex. 3.2. Main challenge of the petitioner in the writ petition is that while passing aforesaid order dt. 17th Aug., 2000 for the asst. yr. 1989-90 under Annex. 3, the Asstt. CIT-OP No. 1 did not act properly in disallowing the unabsorbed depreciation loss of the preceding assessment year to the tune of Rs. 89,138 to be carried forward to subsequent assessment year. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order of the Asstt. CIT is clearly not in consonance with the order passed by the CIT(A)-II, Bhubaneswar, vide Annex. 2.3. The brief facts leading to the writ petition are that for the asst. yr. 1989-90, on completion of assessment under Section 144 of the Ac...
Prantik Vs. Gayatri Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR560(Orissa); 103(2007)CLT110; 2007(I)OLR105
I. Mahanty, J.1. The appellant in the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') seeks to challenge the order dated 1.10.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 35 of 2002 setting aside the award dated 26.12.2001 passed by the Arbitrator.2. The appellant challenges the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that the learned District Judge had failed to consider the statutory requirement under Section 34 of the Act and in particular, after holding that the Arbitrator had not acted illegally or arbitrarily, he came to hold that an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner (Respondent herein) to place its case before the Arbitrator for proper adjudication and if it is not done the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of the requirement of Section 34 of the Act an...
Prantik, Represented Through Its Proprietor Sri Dipak Kumar Biswas Vs. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT126
I. Mahanty, J.1. The Appellant in the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') seeks to challenge the order dated 1.10.2004 passed by the Learned District Judge, Cuttack in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 34 of 2002 setting aside the award dated 26.12.2001 passed by the Arbitrator.2. The Appellant challenges the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that the Learned District Judge had failed to consider the statutory requirement under Section 34 of the Act and in particular, after holding that the Arbitrator had not acted illegally or arbitrarily, he came to hold that an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner (Respondent herein) to place its case before the Arbitrator for proper adjudication and if it is not done the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently submits that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of the requirement of Section 34 of the Act an...
Trilochan Biswal and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Land Reforms and Settlemen ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR817
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The petitioners, all of whom are residents of village Khairapali, under Ranpur Police Station of Nayagarh district, call in question the legality of the order in dropping the proposal for transfer of Ac.16.80 decs, of Pahal land appertaining to Bhalukhiya Mundia hill recorded in the name of village Giridharpur to their village and communicating the same to the opp. pt No. 3 through letter No. 7165 LRS dated 22.7.1997 of the Additional director, Land records and Survey by opp. party No. 1.2. The case of the petitioners in nub is that in terms of Section 36 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act the Government vide Revenue Department NotificationNo. 42032/R dated 6.9.1990 ordered for survey, preparation of R.O. Rs. and settlement of land records simultaneously in respect of the land under Ranpur Police Station. In course of the second round of survey, the petitioners filed a petition before opp. party No. 3 for change of boundary of their village by amalgamating Ac.16....
Smt. Sucheta Pradhan Vs. Sri Sankarsana Nayak
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT41
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The wife-Respondent has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 4.10.2002 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 93 of 1994 allowing the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The present Appellant was the Respondent and the Respondent was the petitioner before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. The parties are Hindus and governed under the Mitakhar School of Law. They entered into a wedlock on 5.5.1977 according to Hindu rites and their Caste custom and lived in the house of the petitioner at Haridapal as husband and wife. During the time of marriage the petitioner was serving as a clerk and subsequently he joined as a Lecturer in Commerce in Rajendra College, Bolangir on ad hoc basis. Subsequently his service was confirmed and he served as a Lecturer in different Colleges. As per the case of the petitioner while he was coming to his native place during holidays, very often the Respondent on some plea or the...
State of Orissa Vs. Indian Traders, Represented by Hazi Abu Bekar and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(I)OLR80
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department and Mr. Sidharth Mishra, amicus curiae, in as much as even after recess the counsel engaged by the respondents/accused did not appear. Mr. Sidharth Mishra says that he has gone through the lower Court's record, findings of both the Courts below and the provision of law and is ready to place his argument. Hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows:2. Vigilance G.R. Case No. 32 of 1981 was initiated against the accused persons in the Court of Addl. C.J.M. (Special), Cuttack, on the allegation that on 17.07.1981 at about 5 p.m. when the officers from Vigilance Central Division, Cuttack, Addl. Commercial Tax Officers and Inspector, Commercial Tax made a surprise raid in the business premises of the accused persons named and styled as M/s. Indian Traders, situated at Malgodown, Cuttack, they found that the accused persons had not indicated the quantity and price of coconut oil in the stoc...
State of Orissa Vs. Chandramani Sahu and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(I)OLR83
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Sidharth Mishra for the accused-respondents, who appears for Mr. N.C. Pati, learned Counsel engaged by the accused-respondents. Hearing is concluded and judgment is as follows.2. The accused/respondents faced the trial for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'N.D.P.S. Act') on the ground that on 27.09.1987 they were found retaining in their licensed Bhang Shop 80 grams of opium for the purpose of sale to the customers. The A.S.I, of Police, who conducted the raid, search and the seizure, was examined as P.W. 6 and the S.I. of Police, who submitted the charge-sheet, was examined as P.W. 7. The independent witnesses to the search and seizure did not support the prosecution. The trial Court, on reference to the provision in Section 50 read with Sections 42 and 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act, found that P.W. 6 did not comply with the mandatory provision of law...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »