Orissa Court February 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.
Sri Nabaghana Patalasingh Vs. Smt. Bhanumati Padhiari
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR330
L. Mohapatra, J.1.The petitioner in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the order dated 06.12.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur in I.C.C. No. 79 of 2001 taking cognizance of the offences under Section 294 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent orders directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner for his non-appearance in the Court.2. A complaint case was filed on the allegation that the complainant had gone to the Soso Police Station to lodge an F.I.R. against some persons who had created disturbances relating to the boundary wall. It is alleged that when she requested the accused Govinda Chandra Mallik, Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to accept the F.I.R., she was abused in filthy language and the petitioner, who was working as A.S.I. at that point of time also used such language. After filing of the complaint case, the learned Magistrate took up inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and took cogniz...
Tata Steel Limited Formerly Known as Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR511
ORDER1. The petitioner assails the ex-parte order of assessment dated 31.12.2005 (Annexure-5) passed under Rule 12(3) of the C.S.T. (O) Rules passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Keonjhar Circle-opposite party No. 2 for the assessment year 2003-04.2. The main thrust of argument of Mr. Ashok Parija, learned Senior Advocate, is that the Sales Tax Officer, Keonjhar Circle-opposite party No. 2 having not granted a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner No. 1 -Company for producing the various declaration forms and other documents in respect of exemptions it was entitled to in relation to the transactions made in course of inter-State trade, the order is per se illegal and, as such, is liable to be quashed on that score alone. It is submitted that the Sales Tax Officer, Keonjhar Circle-opposite party No. 2 sent the notice dated 24.12.2005 (Annexure-2) by registered post to the petitioner No. 1 fixing the date of hearing and production of Books of Accounts to 30.12.2005 but the same was regist...
Nandita Giri and 11 ors. Vs. Central Information Commission Through It ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR514
ORDER1. Heard.The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:In view of the above stated circumstances, the petitioners pray that, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this writ petition and after hearing the parties issue a Writ of Mandamus, particularly, to the O.P. 3 & 4 (Govt. of India and Orissa) to make specific Provisions/Rules pertaining to specific time limit for disposal of complaint Under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 by the Central and State Information Commissions in absence of such statutory provision under the Act;And further be pleased to pass any other Writ/Writs, Direction/ Directions, Order/Orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.2. In course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is no specific provision under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a direction can be given by this Court to the opposite parties to amend and insert specific provisions in the Act specifying the time lim...
Sridhara Mohapatra and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori88
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 2-1-1995 of the Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack-opposite party No. 2 passed in Annexure-14 as well as the order dated 27-7-1992 of the Consolidation Officer, Jagatsinghpur-opposite party No. 4 passed in Annexure-12.2. In order to appreciate claims of respective parties the family genealogy as indicated in the writ application is reproduced below:G E N E A L O G Y--------------------Damodar |-------------------------------------------| |Ananda Janardan| || ----------------------------| | || Ananta Basudev| || Suraprasad Indumati| || ------------------| | || Saraswati Kanchan| (O.P.5)| = Sricharan-------------------------------------------------| |Alekha Banchhanidhi| || ---------------------------| | | | | Lingaraj Kapila Loknath---------------------------------------------| | |Baishnab Sadhu Sridhar (P.1)| = Malatilata (P.2)------------------- || | |Saroda Sarata |------------------------------------...
Das and Company Vs. Orient Weaving (P.) Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: [2007]80SCL165(NULL)
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Company Act Case No. 3/67 relates to Orient Weaving Pvt. Ltd. ('O WML' for short). The following were the Board of Directors of the said Company.(I) Naba Kishore Mohanty (dead),(II) Bansidhar Mohanty (dead),(III) Khetramohan Biswal (dead),(IV) R. P. Nanda,(V) Harmohan Das, and(VI) Manmohan Das.Company Act Case No. 7/68 relates to National Foundry and Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. ('NFRL' for short). The following were the Board of Directors of the said Company.(I) Bansidhar Mohanty (dead),(II) Khetramohan Biswal (dead),(III) Uchhabananda Samantaray (dead),(IV) Baman Charan Das (dead),(V) Manmoahn Das, and(VI) R.P. Nanda.Company Act Case No. 5/92 relates to Utkal Distributors Pvt. Ltd. ('UDPL' for short). The following were the Board of Directors of the said Company.(I) Bansidhar Mohanty (dead),(II) Naba Kishore Mohanty (dead),(III) Khetramohan Biswal (dead), and(IV) Radhika Prasad Nanda (only director alive).The facts and points of law involved in all these cases being ...
Bhabagrahi Pati and 134 ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR357
A.K. Samantaray, J.1. The petitioners who are 135 persons working in different posts of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation on permanent basis in the Local Fund Service have come up with this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction of the State Government in not implementing the Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 on the basis of 5th Pay Commission Report with effect from 1.1.1996 on the ground that the State Government has already implemented the same with effect from 1.1.1996 in respect of the employees of similar cadre in the State Government who are discharging duties and responsibilities of similar nature and have prayed for quashing the Resolution dated 29.8.2002 of Government of Orissa in Housing & Urban Development Department (Annexure-5 and another Resolution dated 28.7.2003 (Annexure-5/A) and to command the opposite parties to implement the Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 with effect from 1.1.1996 on the basis of the 5th...
Kumari Sangeetarani Panigrahi Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR383
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application prays for a direction to the Opposite Parties to appoint her as Secretary of Purusandha Grama Panchayat in the District of Bhadrak.2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to a notification published in the Notice Board of the Panchayat Samiti, she submitted her application for appointment as Secretary of the said Grama Panchayat. She was called to the interview on 8.5.2001 and she stood in the 1st position in the merit list. Even though the petitioner stood first in the merit list, the Grama Panchayat in its resolution dated 7.7.2001 decided not to give appointment to the petitioner on the ground that she is a college going girl and cannot discharge the duties of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. Since the petitioner was not given appointment, she approached different authorities. The Opposite Party No. 2 in its letter dated 4.10.2001 directed for taking early steps for submission of the proposal for appointment of t...
Kailash Chand Mohanty and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR576
A.K. Parichha, J.1. All the misc cases were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order as the common question of fact and law are involved.2. Basing on the allegations that the petitioners (Inder Chand Jain is the common petitioner in all the three misc cases and petitioner Kailash Chandra Mohanty is the co-petitioner of Inder Chand Jain in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4725 of 2000) and their co-accused persons committed criminal misconduct and cheating in the matter of purchase of paddy seeds for the Orissa Seeds Corporation and supply thereof, Vigilance Cases were registered, investigated and on conclusion of investigation charge sheets were submitted under Section 5(1)(c) & 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act read with Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC. After cognizance those cases were registered as T.R. Case Nos. 71, 72 & 73 of 1983 in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. The petitioners, as accused entered appearance and contested the said cases. In the year 1999 they fi...
Sobhan Kumar Sahu Vs. Chancellor, Berhampur University and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT417
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. In this batch of Writ Applications, the petitioners had all applied for registration for Ph.D. Degree in their respective subjects and allege inaction of the Opp. Party No. 3 in not assigning them registration numbers although they had filed their applications in the prescribed form together with the bank drafts between March, 2001 & September, 2002. The petitioners call in question the impugned notification dated 14.8.2003 (Annexure-8) notifying all concerned that as per the order of the Chancellor dated 30.7.2003, Ph.D. candidates who have applied prior to the ban and have not been given registration number are required to apply afresh to the University as per the new Regulation under Correction Slip No. 1169 which came into effect from 4.6.2003.2. The brief facts of the petitioners 'case is that they are all Fist Class Masters' Degree-holders in different subjects and intend to undertake research and study for a Ph.D. Degree under the Utkal University and accordin...
Kumari Rani Swati Monalisa Vs. Chairman, Council of Higher Secondary E ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori122; 101(2006)CLT478
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner calls in question the decision of the Opp. Parties in cancelling the Mathematics Paper-ll of 2 Science Annual Examination, 1999 held n Rajendra College, Bolangir Centre.2. The petitioner had appeared at the Annual Higher Secondary Examination (Science), 1999 from Rajendra College, Bolangir with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as optional subjects and Statistics as fourth optional subject. But the Mathematics Paper-ll examination held on 30.3.1999 had been cancelled on the basis of the report of the Flying Squad for mass malpractice in the centre and the examinees were awarded '00' marks in that paper. According to the petitioner she had never adopted any malpractice nor violated any of the rules of examination inasmuch as there was no report against her for any infringement of examination rules as specified in the Admit Card, either by any Invigilator, Centre Superintendent or Examination Supervisors and, as such, in absence of any specific allegati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »