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.
State Vs. Sarat Chandra Rout
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2683; 2006(I)OLR600
R.N. Biswal, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 11.8.1992 passed by the C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore camp at Malkangiri in sessions Case No.96 of 1991 wherein he acquitted the accused-respondent of the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. only.2. As per the prosecution case on 22.8.1991 at about 2.00 P.M. while the victim (P.W.1) had been to attend the second call of nature, behind the veterinary office of Kudumulugumma, the accused-Respondent and co-accused Nalu Dora came near her and while accused Nalu caught hold of her, accused-Respondent ravished her against her will and without her consent. It was also alleged that accused Nalu snatched away her gold ring. As depicted in the F.I.R., because of fear of casting of slur in her good name she was in double mind to lodge F.I.R. or not. But when the O.I.C. of Orkel P.S. came to her village and some vill...
Shri Paresh Nath Kuanr Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT617; 2006(II)OLR390
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. The petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of Madanpur Grama Panchayat in the District of Keonjhar, has filed this Writ Petition against the impugned notice dated 4.4.2005 issued by the Sub-Collector, Anandapur under Section 24(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Further, he has prayed for declaring Section 24 of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Madanpur Grama Panchayat in the last Panchayat election held in March, 2002. The elected ward members convened a meeting presided over by the Naib Sarpanch on 18.3.2005. In that meeting, 16 ward members were present including the Naib Sarpanch. They passed a resolution to bring 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner and forwarded the same along with an application singed by all the 16 persons to the Sub-Collector with request to take steps to execute the proposed no confidence motion...
Rama Pujhari and ors. Vs. Gouri Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori129; 102(2006)CLT48; 2006(I)OLR792
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Defendants in Title Suit No. 33 of 1975 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna (presently Civil Judge, Senior Division) filed the suit claiming the relief of (1) declaration of sale deed executed on 02.03.1964 by Sriramulu Naik in favour of defendant No. 1 Ram Pujari as a void document; (2) grant recovery of possession of the suit land measuring an area of Ac. 16.90 decimals out of Khata No. 86 (current settlement) of village Thuamal Rampur in the district of Kalahandi; and (3) to declare their right, title and interest over the said case land.2. Plaintiffs sought for the aforesaid prayer on the ground that their father Sriramulu Naik borrowed some money from defendant No. 1 and could not repay the same and, therefore, defendant No. 1 pressurized and persuaded him (Sriramulu) to execute a mortgage deed. By then Sriramulu was 90 years old, he was sick, heard of hearing with defective vision and therefore, was not in a fit state of mind and health to take an ...
S. Govinda Rao, B.K. Mohanta, B. Suryanarayana and M. Ganapati Rao Vs. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT353
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. These writ petitions have been field against the common judgment and order dated 21.3.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in the Original Applications field by the petitioners. S. Govinda Rao, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3198 of 2002, had filed O.A. No. 569 of. 2001, B.K. Mohanta, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3199 of 2002, had filed O.A. No. 561 of 2001, B. Suryanarayan, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3451 of 2002 had filed O.A. No. 573 of 2001, and M. Ganapati Rao, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4149 of 2002, had filed O.A. No. 596 of 2001. These Original Applications were disposed of along with other Original Applications in batch by a common Judgement. The Original Applications filed by these petitioners were disposed of in a different manner than the Original Applications filed by other persons, particulars of which are given below :2. B. Suryanarayan, petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3451 of 2002, belongs to ministerial staff and the other petitioners b...
Prahallad Ch. Panda Vs. Pradeep Kumar Lenka and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)102CALLT133; 2006(I)OLR457
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. The petitioner, who is the defendant in C.S. No. 364 of 2003-I in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 26.4.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 37 of 2004 (Annexure-2) in dismissing his application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak dated 13.12.2005 in F.A.O. No. 31 of 2005 (Annexure-3) in confirming the above order of the learned trial Court under Annexure-2.2. The Plaintiff/opposite parties at the time of filing of their suit, filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 277 of 2003. By order dated 23.4.2003 the learned trial Court had directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule land, which was made absolute by order dated 13.1.2004. In spite of the above order, since the petitioner, who is the ...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori117; 2006(I)OLR744
B.P. Das, J.1. M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. and one of its principal officers, have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.3.2005 passed by O.P. No. 3-the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission ('OERC1 in short) in Case No. 141 of 2004, vide Annexure-4, fixing the retail supply tariff of O.P. No. 2-North Eastern Electricity Supply Company Ltd. ('NESCO' in short) for the financial year 2005-06 to the extent it does not extend the benefit of 25% discount on the energy charges up to 50% load factor to the petitioner's Ferro Alloys Plant at Joda and praying for a direction to OERC to grant similar tariff to the said Plant at Joda, as has been granted to other Ferro Alloys Industries in the State.2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are that petitioner No. 1 -M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. (hereinafter described as 'petitioner') is a manufacturer of Iron and Steel and it is having a Ferro Allo...
Madhu Majhi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR603
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Sessions Judge Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No.1 of 1989 against the appellant.2. Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution allegation in the above noted Sessions Case is that on 9.5.1988 at about noon when Bhimsen Majhi (P.W.1) was returning from Kesinga on his cycle the appellant and his co-accused-Rajendra Majhi attacked him with an axe and knife causing multiple bleeding injuries on his back, stomach and right wrist. P.W.2, who was passing on the road at that time intervened and saved P.W.1, whereafter P.W.1 went to village Sirol, told about the incident to one Udaya Ganda (P.W.6) and requested him to convey the message to his family members. He then lost his sense and was carried to Kesinga Hospital. P.W.3, brother, of P.W.1 informed the police authorities about the incident who rushed to the spot and found the cycle of P.W., axe and other articles lying s...
Santosh Kumar Sahoo Vs. Radhanath Sahoo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT588; 2006(I)OLR507
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner Santosh Kumar Sahoo challenging the order dated 1.12.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in C.S. No. (I) 234 of 2003 wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint and two applications filed by both the plaintiff and defendants under Sections 151 and 152 of C.P.C., for amendment of the compromise petition and accordingly correction of the Final decree respectively, as indicated in the schedules of the proposed amendments, were dismissed.2. Heard Mr. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. Samal, learned Counsel for the opposite parties-defendants.3. Mr. Patnaik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner submits that at the time of filing of the suit for partition i.e. C.S. No. (I) 234 of 2003 in the Court below, inadvert...
Sri Brundaban Sahu Vs. Sri Pabitra Kumar Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR543
R.N. Biswal, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the order of acquittal dated 30.4.1988 passed by the learned C.J.M., Ganjam, Berhampur in I.C.C. case No. 22 of 1987.2. Appellant was the complainant and Respondents were the accused in the Court below. They are all closely related to one another. While accused persons are father and son, complainant and accused Pabitra are co-son-in-laws, their wives being two sisters. They were running a rice mill jointly. Sometime after when misunderstanding developed between them, they entered into an agreement wherein it was agreed upon that the complainant would sell the rice mill to accused Pabitra for a consideration of Rs. 94,000/-. It was further stipulated therein that till the rice mill was sold, accused Pabitra would pay a sum of Rs. 600/- per month to the complainant towards rent. But since he did not pay it the complainant asked him for the same repeatedly. Ultimately, on 24.3.1987 he went to the rice mill where both the accused wer...
Munchu @ Debananda Banchor Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR808
1. Heard and the judgment is as follows:2. Order of conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special, Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in G.R. Case No. 52 of 1995 is under challenge. It should have been registered as a Sessions Case, because of involvement of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. Perhaps for the confusion prevalent then regarding the nomenclature, it was decided as G.R. Case. However that is non-consequential so far as merit of the case is concerned.3. Admittedly appellant is a neighbour of the deceased's family. It is alleged that on 24.3.1995 at about 11 A.M. an altercation ensued between the deceased and her mother (P.W. No. 7) in one side and the wife of the accused/appellant on the other, on the ground that wife of the accused snatched away gudakhu, soap and some tamarind from the hands of the daughter of the deceased. At that time, accused rushed out feorn his house being armed with a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »