Orissa Court April 2006 Judgments
Sri Ramji Pandey Vs. Smt. Jayanti Majumdar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR799
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 26.11.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sambalpur in T.S. No. 61 of 1994 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner who is defendant before the trial Court issuing summon to the bank authority to prove that the witness Motindra Nath Majumdar is drawing his pension from the State Bak of India, Khetrajpur Branch every month.2. The opposite party had filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. In course of hearing of the suit, the petitioner filed.an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead Smt. Subarna Mazumdar, D/o. Manmath Nath Mazumdar as a party to the suit. The case of the petitioner in the said petition is that Manmath Nath Mazumaar was not the landlord and he had executed a registered lease deed in respect of the suit premises in favour of the petitioner for a period of 50 years and was accepting rent from him. The opposite party file...
Tag this Judgment!Sarbeswar Parida Vs. Chairman, Higher Secondary Education and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori135; 2006(II)OLR45
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. At the very outset it is necessary to mention that as the Court was going to be closed due to the Winter Vacations, it was not possible to deliver the reasoned order due to paucity of time. This Court having heard learned Counsel for the parties delivered the operative part of the judgment as under indicating that the reasons to follow:Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The decision of the Council of Higher Secondary Education in cancelling the results of History Paper-ll (Regular) of +2 Arts Examination, 2005 in respect of Maa Kutam Chandi College, Devidol Centre in the district of Jagatsinghpur is quashed. A writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties to publish the result of the students who have appeared in the said examination at Maa Kutam Chandi College, Devidol Centre in the district of Jagatsinghpur by awarding them marks in History Paper-ll (Regular) except in respect of those stude...
Tag this Judgment!Yerra Fabrics Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT245; 2007(I)OLR276; [2006]148STC450(Orissa)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment order which is purported to have been issued on July 30, 2004 though the date of the order does not appear in the impugned order, annexure 1. The order appears to be a printed one and the blanks have been filled up. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said assessment order which is purported to have been passed in clear violation of the provisions contained under Section 7(4) of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 cannot be sustained. The provisions of Section 7(4) of the Entry Tax Act reads as follows:Section 7(4) of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999.(4) If no return is submitted by the dealer under Sub-section (1) within the period prescribed or if the return submitted by him appears to the assessing authority to be incorrect or incomplete, he shall assess the dealer to the best of his judgment recording the reasons for such assessment:Provided that before taking action under this s...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Patel and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT746
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This writ application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2005 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in Original Application No. 1676(C) of 2004 dismissing the O.A. filed by the instant petitioners.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Nalin Kanta Pradhan and Pradeep Chandra Sahu were selected by the Orissa Public Service commission (for short, 'the OPSC') for the posts of Assistant Engineer in the year 1982. A merit list was prepared by the OPSC in which opposite parties 3 and 4 were shown below the petitioners and as such they were shown juniors to the petitioners in the inter se seniority. On the basis of the merit list determined by the OPSC, the petitioners and opposite parties 3 and 4 were promoted to the posts of the Assistant Executive Engineer and their inter se seniority remained undisturbed till the year 1999. In the year 1999 when the promotion to the pos...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sudarsan Barik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: (2007)1LLJ111Ori; 2007(2)SLJ362(NULL)
ORDER1. These writ petitions have been filed on behalf of the Union of India represented through its General Manager, South Eastern Railways and others challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated January 25, 1999 in a batch of O.As. Since all these writ petitions have been filed against a common Judgment of the Tribunal and involve common questions of law, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties in all the instant writ petitions were initially engaged as casual labour for the year 1967-68 and had worked till the year 1972-1973 under Permanent Way Inspectors belonging to Sompeta, Berhampur, Ramba and Khurda Road Units. They were retrenched in 2 the year 1972-1973. Thereafter a circular was issued by the Railway Board dated March 16, 1987 in continuation of its earlier letters dated August 1, 1964, June 25, 1984 and September 11, 1986 in respect of ma...
Tag this Judgment!Bangali @ Manoranjan Sahu Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR752
S.B. Roy, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of habeas corpus as he is detained under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pursuant to the order of detention dated 29.10.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam. The detention order is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which reads as follows:In pursuance of the provisions of N.S. Act, 1980, the grounds relating to your detention under the Act alongwith other relevant documents are sent herewith as per enclosures for your information.2. You are hereby further informed that you have a right to make a representation to the State Government in Home Department Under Section 8 of N.S. Act/Central Government Under Section 14 of N.S. Act against the order of detention passed against you. You may address your representation, if any, at the earliest to the Principal Secretary to Government of ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhab Maharana and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR145
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Heard2. Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC the petitioners have filed this CRLMC seeking to quash the order dated 1.10.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T. (SS) No. 326 of 2004/1 of 2004. The petitioners are admittedly facing trial for alleged commission of the offences under Sections 147/148/323/307/506/149 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. The trial has already commenced and some witnesses have already been examined. At this juncture two petitions were filed before the Court below, one under Section 233 CrPC with prayer to summon five witnesses being the Secretary to Government in the Home Department, IIC of Dhenkanal Town P.S., OIC of Motanga P.S. and two others, namely, Kirtan Sahu and Minaketan Sahu; and the other under Section 91 CrPC praying to call for some documents from the Under Secretary to Government of Orissa, Home Department and the OIC of Motanga P.S. The Court below has disposed of both the aforesaid petition...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Saharpada Lamps Vs. Nanda Kishore Tanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR476
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In this revision, the informant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.09.1995 passed by the learned SDJM, Keonjhar in G.R. Case No. 342 of 1987 (T.C. No. 599 of 1988) acquitting the opposite party of the charge under Section 408 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:The opposite party, while serving as the Branch Manager of Saharpada LAMPS, was entrusted with collection of loans from the members of the said LAMPS. After receipt of several allegations from different members, an enquiry was conducted, during which it was detected that the opposite party, after collecting loans from different loanees in his official capacity, had misappropriated the amount without depositing the same in the loan account. F.I.R. was lodged by the Managing Director of Saharpada Branch before the Officer-in-charge of Patna Police Station, which was registered as Patna P.S. Case No. 69 of 1987 and investigation was taken up, on completion of which chargesheet under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Sahu and ors. Vs. Director General, Central Bureau of Inve ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR708
ORDERI. Mahanty, J.1. This writ application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the form of a Public Interest Litigation by one Sri Ashok Kumar Sahu and three others challenging the inaction of the police in deliberately and intentionally trying to suppress the involvement of various bureaucrats and officials and other important individuals in the alleged criminal conspiracy of forged postal National Saving Certificates (in short 'NSC') for abetting and assisting the principal accused persons in destroying the evidence and seeking a direction from this Court to transfer investigation of the case to C.B.I. Notices have been issued to the opposite parties and counter affidavit in this regard has been filed by the opposite party No. 3-Inspector-in-Charge of the Town Police Station, Baripada, District-Mayurbhanj.Mr. Ashok Mukherji, learned Sr, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that a deep rooted conspiracy and unholy nexus exists be...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Deepti Vs. Rourkela Steel Plant and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR772
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application has been filed for a direction to the opposite parties to grant permission to the petitioner for mortgaging the properties mentioned in the petition to the flanks or other financial institutions for availing various loan facilities.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's hotel was initially started by some entrepreneurs and the hotel was run in the name and style of 'Hotel Konarak'. In the year 1988, M/s. Patel and partners purchased the said hotel from the owners thereon and started running the same in the name and style of 'Hotel Deepti'. A lease deed was executed on 7th August, 1998 under a tripartite lease agreement between the State of Orissa, Steel Authority of India Ltd. and the petitioner and. under the said lease deed, the schedule lands which are sought to be mortgaged were given on lease to the petitioner. Clause 16 of the lease deed provides that without prior permission of the opposite party No. 1, the petitioner cann...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »