Orissa Court December 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.
Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)OLR169
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 24 of 2002 rejecting the application to recall P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination.2. On 14.11.2006 P.W.12 was examined. On the said date an application was filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court to recall the P.Ws.1 to 11 for further cross-examination on the ground that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined on fact as well as legal aspect. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner further cross-examination of the said witnesses is required for a fair trial and to ensure justice. The effective adjudication of the case can only be made if the said witnesses are recalled for further cross-examination.3. The aforesaid petition was opposed by the C.B.I. Shri S.K. Padhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that these witnesses we...
Orissa Patita Udhar Samiti Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)OLR150
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Though this matter was listed for orders, but this being a writ petition of the year, 1998, with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel appearing for the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation.3. On perusal of the record, it is seen that by order dated 13.7.1998 passed in Misc. Case No. 7984 of 1998, this Court while considering the said misc. case petition for interim orders directed as follows:We direct the Director, Social Welfare that an inquiry be made and after proper verification regarding such victims now residing at Mallisahi, Bhubaneswar on encroached land it shall be ensured that such victim persons shall not be evicted without proper rehabilitation. But this order shall not apply to other person residing in that area. 4. This writ application has been filed by an NGO taking up...
Laxmidhar Behera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)OLR224
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court for grant of bail. The petitioner had earlier moved before submission of charge sheet vide BLAPL No. 8599 of 2006 and by order dated 18.9.2006 the petition was rejected with liberty to the petitioner to move afresh after submission of charge sheet. Charge sheet was submitted on 19.10.2006 for commission of offences under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the Penal Code. The petitioner has moved this application again for grant of bail.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the informant. Perused the case diary.3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant was staying with her son Sridhar and was separated from her husband. Six months prior to the incident, she had gone to attend a religious function in her husband's house where she met the petitioner who is her brother-in-law. It is alleged that the marriage of the son of the informant having been fi...
Rashmirekha Mohapatra Vs. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-07-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT137; [2007(113)FLR202]
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In this writ application, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 03.10.2001 passed in O.A. No. 474 of 1999 by the Central , Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench. The O.A. was filed against the order of transfer of the present Petitioner dated 09.08.1999 vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The Tribunal, however, did not find any merit in the O.A. and dismissed the same.2. The case of the Petitioner is that she was working as a primary teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Balasore with effect from 25.10.1983. The transfer order dated 09.08.1999 was issued on the ground of surplus. She made representations to all authorities concerned for not giving effect to the said order on medical ground. In her representations, she averred that her juniors had not been transferred. Further case of the Petitioner is that another teacher, namely, Gayatri Prasad, who was also transferred along with her, made a representation and her case was considered favourably by the authorities...
Lingaraj Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)9VST95(Orissa)
I. Mahanty, J.1. In these writ applications the petitioner, M/s. Lingaraj Pipes Private Limited has sought to challenge various orders of assessment and consequential demands, inter alia, on the ground that the assessing officer has failed to consider the exemption that the petitioner is entitled to under the I.P.R., 1996. According to the petitioner it had set up its unit acting upon the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPR, 1996') having fulfilled the terms and conditions regarding investments in capital within the stipulated period and commenced its commercial production with effect from January 8, 2000. The petitioner-company further submits that it has been duly certified by the Director of Industries on March 29, 2001 to be a 'priority industry' within the meaning of paragraph 2.7 of the IPR 1996 and the Director of Industries has issued necessary certificate in form E(96) declaring the petitioner-company to be eligible for all the sales tax incenti...
State of Orissa Vs. Mangalu Mahakud
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1777
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This Appeal has been filed by the State against the impugned judgment and order dated 30-7-1987 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 1985 convicting the respondent under Section 304, Part I, IPC and sentencing him to five years' R.I. No appeal has been preferred by the respondent-accused against the said order of his conviction. Although, no appeal has been preferred by the respondent (accused), during hearing of the appeal and scanning of the evidence on record we have also considered that aspect carefully.2. Though charge was framed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, the learned Sessions Judge by the, impugned judgment and order convicted him under Section 304, Part I of the IPC on the ground that the accused suddenly got angry and in that state of mind dealt blows on the person of the deceased with a sharp cutting weapon which caused at least three fatal injuries of lengths varying fr...
Smt. Manorama Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Four ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: 2007(I)OLR142
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed a Sub-wholesale Dealer of Kerosene oil. Being aggrieved by appointment of opposite party No. 5 and reduction of his quota the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) of 13713 of 2004. Mr. Das submits that during the pendency of the said writ application, it was learnt that the license of the petitioner had been renewed and she had been allowed to lift her quota of Kerosene, accordingly the writ application was disposed of by order dtd. 9.8.2005 observing as follows:Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of changed circumstances, he does not want to press this writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed.2. There after, it appears that the Collector, Nayagarh passed an order on 29.9.2005 reducing the quota of the petitioner from 17 K.L. to 10 K.L. on the ground that the writ application filed by the petitioner has been disposed by th...
Sri Akshaya Kumar Mallick Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT458; 2007(I)OLR291
ORDER1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Counsel for the intervenor and the Learned Government Advocate2. The temple of Lord Jagannath situated at Keradagarh under Rajnagar Police Station in the district of Kendrapara is admittedly a public deity. It is stated that that said temple was constructed about 200 years back by the then Zamindar of Kanika and the idol of deities were installed therein. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and is stated to be representing, other members of the said caste. It is alleged by the petitioner that person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community are being obstructed by the caste Hindus (Sabarnas) from entering into the said temple to offer puja to Lord Jagannath. It has been further stated in the writ petition that such obstruction by the caste Hindus (Sabarnas) amounts to atrocities on the men and women belonging to the Scheduled Caste community.3. It appears from Annexure-5 that the Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara intim...
Kanhu Charan SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT189
R.N. Biswal, J.1. Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the Petitioner is that Sri Raghunath Swamy Girls High School '(here-in-after referred to as 'S.R.S. Girls' High School') established in the year 1992 at Ballipadar under Ganjam District is a private unaided recognized institution. The Petitioner was the secretary of the Managing Committee of the said School from 20.7.2001 to 20.7.2004. Before expiry of the term of the said Managing Committee, the Petitioner convened a meeting for reconstitution of the Managing Committee and after observing all formalities, sent a panel of names to the Inspector of Schools, Ganjam Circle, Berhampur, Opp. Party No. 3 vide Annexue 6 dated 20.4.2004 to take steps for approval of the proposed Managing Committee. Though the list was sent within the stipulated time as per law, Opp. Parties 2 and 3 did not take any step and slept over the matter. Opp. Party No. 5 sent 3 panel of names for approval on different dates one after the other. When none of th...
Sri Abhimanyu Hota and Five ors. Vs. the State of Orissa and Three ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT263; 2007(I)OLR139
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.2. Heard.3. The order dated 25.03.2004 of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nilgiri passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 15 of 2003 is under challenge.The facts and circumstances leading to the present revision can be summarily stated as follows:The petitioners, who are some of the villagers of Radhikadeipur, filed a petition before the learned Sub-Collector & Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nilgiri alleging that opposite party No. 4 has obstructed a water channel thereby causing public nuisance and praying for removal of such nuisance invoking power under Section 133, Cr.P.C. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued notice to opposite party No. 4, conducted inquiry into the allegations and passed order dated 30th May, 2003 directing opposite party No. 4 to remove the said obstruction and clear the water channel. Opposite party No. 4 filed Crimi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »