Orissa Court March 2006 Judgments
Smt. Nibedita Pradhan Vs. Smt. Sanjukta Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR607
R.N. Biswal, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.11.2005 passed by the District Judge, Khurda in ELP No.377 of 2003 wherein while allowing the petition dated 29.9.2005 filed by the petitioner in part, he refused to accept the certified copy of the report of the R.I., Naganpur.2. The petitioner was Opp.Party No.1 while Opp.Party No.1 was the petitioner in ELP No.377 of 2003. Opp.Party Nos. 2 and 3 were the proforma Opp.Party Nos. 2 and 3 in the aforesaid case. On 29.9.2005 Opp.Party No.1 in the Court below filed a petition under Order-8, Rule 1A(3) read with Order-18 Sub-rule (2) and Section 151 of C.P.C. to accept 11 Nos. of documents on the grounds stated therein. The Court below allowed the petition in part and refused to accept certified copy of the letter bearing No.2153 of 2003 of the Tahasildar, Marshaghai, certified copy of the letter of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and the certified copy of the report of the R.I., Naganpur. The first tw...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC478; 101(2006)CLT735; [2006(110)FLR398]; 2006(I)OLR631
N. Prusty, J.1. Even though this matter is listed for admission, learned Counsel for both the parties submits that the same can be disposed of at this stage since the accident is of the year 2003 and the claimant has not received anything towards compensation as well as the only ground of challenge in this appeal is with regard to quantum of the award.2. Heard Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Samantaray, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The award dated 26.12.2005 passed by the learned commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in W.C. Case No.455-D of 2003 is assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company in this appeal mainly on the ground that the quantum of the awarded amount is excessive.4. Mr. Das, learned Counsel submits that keeping in view the evidence on record as well as income, injury and loss sustained by the injured claimant at best he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Committee of Malda High School and ors. Vs. State of Orissa a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori144
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The factual aspects being similar and the points of law involved same in all the three cases, all of them were heard analogously and a common judgment is delivered thereon.2. The case of the petitioners is that their institutions are all recognized schools within the meaning of Section 3(k) of the Orissa Education Act. all of them being recognized in the year 1983. Hie principle as laid down by Smic Government for releasing grant-in-aid to Non Government Aided 1 Ugh Schools, published vide notification No. 9760 dated 7-3-1979 reads as follows:A recognized High School will be eligible to receive the minimum grant-in-aid after 4 years from the year of presentation of candidates in the final High School Examination subject to the following conditions:(a) If it is a 6 class High School, it must have 200 students on its roll and If it is a 4-class school, must have 140 students on its roll.(b) The result of the school must not be, at any rate, below the State average in th...
Tag this Judgment!Baburam Das Vs. Tahasildar and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT711; 2006(I)OLR598
ORDERW.P. (C) No. 2880 of 2006 Misc. Case Nos. 2397 of 2006N. Prusty, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who claims to be the tenant under, opposite party No.2, for quashing order dated 15.1.2005 and 4.2.2005 passed in O.L.R. Case No.152 of 2005 and also order dated 9.1.2006 in the same proceeding.2. The learned Tahasildar, Balasore by his order dated 15.1.2005 in O.L.R. Case No. 152 of 2005 allowed the conversion of the Kisam of the disputed land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land (ghar bari) subject to payment of Rs. 31,537/- and by order dated 4.2.2005 directed correction of the R.O.R. and enhancement of the land revenue (Annexure-4). By order dated 9.1.2006 the review application filed by present writ petitioner against orders dated 15.1.2005 and 4.2.2005 in O.L.R. Case No. 152 of 2005 was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not taken any step to implead him a party in the course of disposal of the case and there is no clerical mistake ...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Sen Vs. Republic of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR755
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The appellant in this Criminal Appeal faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 457/380/411 I.P.C. in S.P.E. Case No. 14 of 1986 before the Add). Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Spl. C.J.M, (C.B.I.)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.2. The criminal case was set in motion on the basis of an F.I.R. filed alleging that some known persons had stolen the idol of Lord Nursinghanath, The investigation, which was initially conducted by Paikakamala P.S. was subsequently handed over to C.B.I, in view of the serious nature of offences. The Investigating Agency was able to arrest the appellant and others and also recover the idol.3. In order to substantiate its case prosecution got examined as many as 28 witnesses and exhibited several documents. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cu/77-Spl. C.J.M. (C.B.I.)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar after thread-bare discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, arrived at a conclusion that prosecution w...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rohini Devi @ Rajeswari Dasi Vs. Babaji Jagannath Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori141; 101(2006)CLT646
Pradip Mohanty, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction filed by Respondent No. 1 restraining the defendants from entering into the suit land. The sole plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed the suit against the defendants, which was registered as T.S. No. 170 of 1980.2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is that he is the Chela of Sri Radhakrishna Mahaprabhu. He is in the management of the institution. The suit property was purchased by him. Since the defendants created trouble, he filed the suit for permanent injunction. Defendants 2 to 9 (Respondents 2 to 9 herein) though did not contest and suit, supported the case of the defendant No. 1 by filing joint written statement. The present appellant-defendant No. 1, after appearing in the suit, filed a separate written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff. She also denied to have taken the plaintiff as a Chela of the Math. According to her, the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Nikhi Alias Muralidhar Alias Rajendra Naik Vs. Republic of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3074
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The appellant in this Jail Criminal Appeal faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 457/380/411, I.P.C. in S.P.E. Case No. 14 of 1986 before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Spl. C.J.M. (C.B.I.)-cum-Asstt. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.2. The criminal case was set in motion on the basis of an F.I.R. filed alleging that some unknown persons had stolen the idol of Lord Nursinghnath. The investigation, which was initially conducted by Paikakamala P.S. was subsequently handed over to C.B.I. in view of the serious nature of offences. The Investigating Agency was able to arrest the appellant and others and also recover the idol.3. In order to substantiate its case prosecution got examined as many as 28 witnesses and exhibited several documents. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Spl. C.J.M. (C.B.I.)-cum-Asstt. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar after thread-bare discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, arrived at a conclusion tha...
Tag this Judgment!Bansidhar Moharana Vs. Area Manager Sales (Auto Loan) Icici Bank, Asse ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR329
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ application prays for a direction to the opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 to take action against the persons who are named in the F.I.R. lodged by the driver of the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No. OR-02-AC-0639 and also for a direction to the opposite party No. 2 to release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner by accepting two monthly instalments i.e. for the months of August and September, 2005.2. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased a vehicle bearing the aforesaid registration number financed by the ICICI Bank. The petitioner was required to pay back the amount to the bank in sixty instalments and accordingly as per terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement he had signed sixty post dated cheques and the same were to be encashed by the bank. According to the petitioner, the said cheques were being encashed by the bank towards realization of the instalments from time to time and suddenly from the month of Jan...
Tag this Judgment!Dhaniraj Sabar Vs. Radhakrishna Sabar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: II(2006)DMC268; 2006(I)OLR765
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Learned Counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondents. This being a year-old case of the year 1988, I take it for hearing from provisional list.2. Heard and the judgment is as follows.3. Appellant instituted I.C.C. Case No. 61 of 1986 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Dharamgarh complaining that offence under Sections 497 and 494, I.P.C. was committed by his wife and in-laws and offence under Sections 494/109, I.P.C. by the remaining accused persons who performed the marriage of accused Ura Dei with accused Bhubaneswar notwithstanding subsistence of the marital relationship between Ura Dei and the complainant. Accused persons denied to the allegation and claimed for trial. In course of trial, prosecution relied on the oral evidence of five witnesses. Accused persons did not adduce any evidence and capitalized on the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 5.4. Section 494, I.P.C. prohibits a husband or wife to marry with any other male or female during subs...
Tag this Judgment!Dabal @ Jabal SwaIn @ Jahal SwaIn and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT58
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard and the Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the following manner.2. Appellants were the accused persons in Sessions Trial, No. 15 of 1988 (S.C. 54 of 1988 GDC). Accused persons faced the trial for the offence under Sections 302/149, IPC in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur on the allegation that on 22.5.1983 at about 8 P.M. all the accused persons forming unlawful assembly and being armed with weapons came and attacked Laxmi Pradhan, the deceased, Trial was proceeded with that accusation because of the plea of denial of the accused persons. In course of trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses relied on Exts. 1 to 18/1 as documentary evidence and M.Os. I to XI as material objects to substantiate the charge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on appreciation of the said evidence together with the defence plea found that the fact of constituting unlawful assembly and fact of assault on the deceased are proved. But there being provocation from th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »