Orissa Court March 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.
Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. and Two ors. Vs. State of Orissa a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2548; 2006(I)OLR518
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for opp. party No. 1-State are present. Despite serviced of notice, no one has appeared for opp.party No. 2. Though, the matter is listed for admission, on the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. it is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.2. Petitioners have assailed the FIR dated 9.2.2000 registered as Capital P.S. Case No. 60 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 455 of 2000 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for offences Under Section 153A, 153B, and also the proceedings of that case.3. Petitioner No. 1, a Publishing House, is publishing an English daily, 'The Indian Express' from various canters of the country. It published a book in December, 1999 from Chennai bearing title 'India 1000 to 2000' a millennium book of reference containing various topics, such as; culture, history, economy, sociology, Arts, Science, literature etc. That book was ...
Birbal Prasad Agarwal Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT635; 2006(I)OLR537
A.K. Parichha, J.1. The judgment dated 13.1.1989 passed by the Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. No. 48 of 1987 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is under challenge in this appeal.2. The appellant is a retailer in essential commodities at Naktideul in the district of Sambalpur. He was prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in short, 'the Act' for violation of Clause 3 of the Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977, in short, 'Control Order 1977' and Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1973. According to the prosecution allegation, the officials of the Supply Department visited the business premises of the appellant on 1.11.1987 and found that he had stock of pulses, edible oilseeds and edible oils of different quantities in his premises, but...
Shri Ananta Patra and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR568
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Relief claimed in all the writ applications being similar, on the request of the learned Counsel appearing parties, all the cases were taken together for hearing. The petitioners in all the writ applications were employees of erstwhile Bhaskar Textile Mills Limited working in different capacities. In these writ applications they challenge the order dated 02.01.2002 issued by the Department of Public Enterprises, Government of Orissa fixing the cut-off date 31.5.1998 for the purpose of computation of duties under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme instead of 31.5.2001 as a result of which, the petitioners have been deprived of salaries/wages for the period from June, 1998 to May, 2001. They also pray for deposit of Provident Fund shares from 1991 to 2001.2. The case of the petitioners is that erstwhile Bhaskar Textile Mills Limited was established in the year 1965 and at a subsequent stage the production capacity was increased. 2500 (Two thousand five hundred) workers we...
Rasik Chand Singh Vs. Rabinarayan Das and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT567; 2006(I)OLR515
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., this case has been filed with a prayer to cancel the bail granted by this Court in favour of opposite party No. 1 in BLAPL No. 9500/05 mainly on the ground that vital facts were suppressed from this Court by the said opposite party.2. Admittedly the said opposite party No. 1 is an accused in G.R. Case No. 608/05 pending in the Court of the SDJM, Puri. It is alleged that he committed offences under Sections 419/420 IPC and Section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act. The prayer for bail of the said opposite party No. 1 was rejected by the Sessions Judge. Puri, vide order dated 1.11.2005 in B.A. No. 898/05. He filed BLAPL No. 9368/ 05 before this Court on 14.11.2004 enclosing a free copy of the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge dated 11.11.2005. BLAPL No. 9368/05 was taken up on 16th January, 2006 when the informant in the aforesaid G.R. Case entered appearance and opposed the prayer for bail. After hearing the ...
Manoj Kumar Jena Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR299
ORDER1. None appears for intervenor. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel are present Counter has already been filed.2. Heard.3. The writ petition is disposed of in the following manner.4. Petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Machhalo Gram Panchayat in the district of Keonjhar. He ventilates his grievance against the instruction dated 19.10.2005 issued by the Collector, Annexure-1 and the meeting convened by the B.D.O. for selecting the VLL as per the letter No. 1625 dated 19.10.2005, Annexure-2 and prays to quash the same.5. It appears from Annexure-1 that Collector issued instructions to the B.D.Os. to see that the Selection of VLL be made on annual basis so as to facilitate timely execution of work under the SGRY/NFFWP Scheme so also for undertaking all developmental Projects under different Panchayats. It appears from Annexure-2 that opposite party No. 4 i.e., the Block Development Officer, Ghashipura Block issued notice to the Sarpanches within that Blo...
Adhikari Bagha and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT729; 2006(I)OLR563
A.K. Parichha, J.1. The appellants have filed this appeal challenging the order of conviction under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, IPC recorded against them by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1988.2. The appellants who were accused persons in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1988 were charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, IPC on the allegation that forming an unlawful assembly armed with lathis, they carried an attack on Ananta Biswal near Akhobhonga Nala of village Kanakpur on dated 23.3.1988 in furtherance of their common object to cause death to the said person. It was alleged that Ananta Biswal was not pulling on well with the appellants and some other villagers and litigations were going on between them and because of such enmity, the appellants had given threat that they would kill Ananta. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence, the appellants went in a body armed with lathis and attacked Ananta who was easing himself near the Nala. Appellant ...
Chandramani Senapati Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT481; 2006(I)OLR460
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order of suspension dated 17.2.2006 (Annexure-7) and for a direction to Opp. Party No. 2/ Collector, Jajpur to accept the renewal application of the petitioner for the year 2006-2007.2. Heard Mr. Mallick. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.3. Mr. Mallik, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of an earlier notice dated 22.9.2005 (Annexure-2) the petitioner had filed his show cause on 28.9.2005 (Annexure-3). Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and after giving a chance of personal hearing to the petitioner Opp. Party No. 2/Collector, Jajpur has imposed a fine of Rs. 2000/- on the petitioner for the irregularities committed by him and warned him not to repeat such type of mistake in future (Annexure-5). The present show cause notice dated 17.2.2006 has been issued to the petitioner suspending his...
Sadhana Patra Vs. Subrat Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori105; II(2006)DMC316; 2006(I)OLR524
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 26.10.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 211 of 2000 rejecting prayer of the petitioner to recall the order dated 23.9.2005, prayer for adjournment as well as prayer to cross-examine P.W. 1 by the counsel appointed by the Court as amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner.2. Shri Jena, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges the order basically on two grounds, namely refusal of prayer for adjournment arbitrarily and denial of an opportunity to the counsel to cross-examine P.W. 1. Learned Counsel submitted that after the prayer for adjournment asked for on a reasonable ground was turned down, the counsel who was appointed as Amicus curiae prayed before the Court to permit him to cross-examine P.W. 1, but the same was refused on the ground that the petitioner was absent on that date and in her absence cross-examination was not permissible and that the learned Co...
Dr. Raj Kishore Sahu Vs. Government of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT737
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This writ application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2002 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 709 of 2000. While disposing of the O.A., the Tribunal observed that the Enquiry Officer without any supporting evidence gave a finding to exonerate the petitioner from the charges and the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the same, imposed punishment without giving any reason for substituting its own findings and punishment. The Tribunal further observed that apparently there was some negligence on the part of the petitioner in ensuring proper post-operative care to the patient and that while going to attend the emergency case he should have made some arrangements for monitoring the condition of the patient. However, the Tribunal while directing to treat the period of suspension as such, quashed the other penalties imposed vide Annexures 7 & 10 therein and upheld by Annexure-1 4 thereof.2. The brief facts of ...
Kelu Charan Samal Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT576; [2006(110)FLR116]
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2001 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No. 1469(C) of 1994 filed by the present petitioner. By the said order, while disposing of the O.A., the Tribunal has directed that if the review D.P.C. finds the petitioner suitable, he would be promoted and appropriate seniority would be assigned to him. But, as he has already retired from service with effect from 28.2.2001, he would be given notional promotion to the rank of Superintendent (Inspector-M) from the date of his reversion, i.e., 30.5.1997 till the date of his retirement, i.e., upto 28.2.2001. But, as during this period he has not worked in the promotional post, he would not get the differential back wages.2. The brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 4, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. In that proceedi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »