Orissa Court April 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.
Khalil Nahak Vs. Hadu Nahak (Dead) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori131; 103(2007)CLT118
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska passed in T.A. No. 19 of 1982 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Aska in T.S. No. 15 of 1980 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent.2. Plaintiff-appellant's case was that he purchased the suit land measuring 6 cubits north to south, 30 cubits east to west standing on Survey No. 115/11 in patta No. 35 of village Nuagam on 8-9-1976 from one Sahadev Nayak, who had purchased that land from one Bhobani Nayak on 18-5-1965 in the name of his wife Late Kishori Deby by way of benami transaction. The defendant-respondent whose house adjoins the suit site encroached into the suit land measuring an extent of 4 x 30 cubits in spite of protest of the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff accordingly filed the suit for a direction to the defendant-respondent to vacate the suit land, to restore the suit site to its original condition at his own cos...
N. Simanchal Reddy Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR699
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. This is an application under Section 407(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to transfer S.C. Nos. 6 of 2000 and 7 of 2000 arising out of G.R. Case No. 157 of 1998 from the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur to any other Sessions Judge of the neighbouring district or any other Sessions Judge of the same district mainly on the ground that the petitioner would not get fair and impartial trial from the presiding officer of the said Court, namely, Shri B.N. Jena.2. In the petition several instances have been cited to show that the orders passed by the said presiding officer were tainted with bias, and as justification for the aforesaid apprehension of the petitioner. It is also alleged that certain orders passed by the said presiding officer were erroneous. But then the allegation that some orders passed by a presiding officer are not just and proper cannot be a ground for transfer of a case from the concerned Court to another. If a Court comm...
Upali Surajita Dhal and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3097; 2006(I)OLR767
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC the petitioners who are accused in ICC No. 24 of 2004 in the Court of the SDJM, Jajpur have prayed for quashing the order of the Court below passed on 27th March, 2004 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 448/294/506(1)/34 IPC.2. Opposite party No. 2 who is an Assistant of the Postal Department and was posted at the S.B. Counter of the Jajpur G.P.O. filed a complaint on the basis of which the aforesaid complaint case was registered before the Court below alleging that on 12th May, 2001 at about 13.30 hours the petitioners along with three others came to the Jajpur G.P.O. and accused petitioner No. 1- Upali wanted to withdraw of a sum of Rs. 1,500.00 from her A/c No. 56280. That being a Saturday, the counters of the GPO were closed since 1.00 p.m. and the complainant told the said fact to the accused-petitioners. Being enraged, the petitioners abused the complainant, threatened to assault him an...
Umashankar Agrawal @ Umashankar Singhal and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT830; 2006(I)OLR700
A.S. Naidu, J.1. One Sobha Singhal, a young bride, vanished from mother earth shortly more than a year after her marriage. Admittedly she was married to accused Umashankar Agrawal @ Singhal on 30th of May, 1996 and on 16th of September, 1997 a report was lodged with police at Uditnagar Outpost by husband Umashankar that his wife Sobha was missing. At the other hand, on 19th September, 1997, Rajkishore Chhapolia, father of Sobha, filed an FIR at the Plant Site Police Station, Rourkela stating that he apprehended some foul play at the matrimonial house of Sobha. On the basis of the FIR of Rajkishore Chhapolia, Plant Site P.S. Case No. 317 of 1997 was registered. On completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498-A/34 IPC against Umashankar Singhal and Rani @ Laxmi Kumari Podar. Learned SDJM, Panposh took cognizance of the aforesaid offences in G.R. Case No. 1483 of 1997 and framed charge against them.2. The aforesaid accused persons challenged the order of th...
State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Kambhupani Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR784
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This writ application has been filed against the orders dated 20.10.1998 and 7.5.2001 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 2088 of 1996 and M.P. No. 1290 of 1998 respectively.2. At the very outset, we feel it necessary to mention that the State Government vide their order dated 10.11.1995 had already conceded the demand of the opposite party who was working as Worksarkar Grade-l in Hirakud Dam Circle, Burla and directed the Superintending Engineer of that circle that he is entitled to the Central Government pay scale of Rs. 150-3207- (with effect from 29.3.63), Rs. 380-640/-(with effect from 1.1.73) and Rs. 1400-23007- (with effect from 1.1.86) in the post of Worksarkar Grade-l and it was directed by the Government to the Superintending Engineer to prepare revised computation statement without further delay and take steps to make payment of the same. It was specifically mentioned in the said order of the State Government that directio...
State of Orissa Vs. I.D.L. Chemical (P) Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-2006
Reported in: [2006]147STC231(Orissa)
A.K. Parichha, J.1. Both the S.J.C and the S.T. REV. arise out of references made by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act'). Since identical disputes are involved in the references, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The cases relate to assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 to 1983-84, 1989-90 and 1990-91 in respect of assessee, M/s. IDL Industries (formerly IDL Chemicals Ltd.), a company under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Kukatpalli, Andhra Pradesh, engaged in manufacturing explosives, detonators and accessories and holding licence under the Explosives Act, 1884. It has a manufacturing unit at Sonaparbat near Rourkela in Orissa which is also registered under both the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle, Rourkela. M/s. IDL is a regular supplier of its products to differ...
Ashok Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT203; 2006(I)OLR777
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and this application under Section 482, CrPC. is disposed of at the stage of admission on consent of both the parties.2. Petitioner is one of the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 390 of 2005 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak. Charge sheet was filed against seven accused persons for the offence under Section 498-A/494/506/34, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'D.P. Act') on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the father of one Haraypriya Sahu being described as the wife of accused Ashok Kumar Sahoo. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that there was torture and ill-treatment on her by the husband and the in-laws constituting the offence under Section 498-A/34, I.P.C. It is further alleged that with the mediation of the present petitioner, marriage of Ashok Kumar Sahoo was performed with accused Puspita Mallik constituting the offence under Section 494, J.P.C. and petitioner and the...
Upendra Kanhar Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR757
1. Order of conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life pronounced by learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack as against the appellant in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1995 (Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1995 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Cuttack) is under challenge.2. According to the case of the prosecution, accused-appellant Upendra Kanhar was serving as a boy in a confectionery shop in the name and style 'Cuttack Sweets Stall' situated at College Square, Cuttack. In the occurrence night, i.e., in the night of 04.10.1994 after the shop was closed at about 10 to 11 p.m. other boys retired to their retiring room on the rear side of the confectionery shop, but accused remained engaged in sweeping the canteen room where the deceased being the Manager took rest as usual. Around 4.30 to 5 a.m. of 05.10.1994 near Badambadi Bus-stand area Police Havildar (P.W. 6) found the accused moving carrying two bags. Out of suspicion he put a few questions and accused gave...
Gandhi Dalbehera Vs. Deepchand Keshwani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR655
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the defendant No.3 in T.S. No.75 of 2004 challenging the order dated 1.3.2006 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bolangir in above said suit, whereby the learned Court has rejected the petition filed by the defendant No.3 to accept the written statement filed by him, since the same was filed after expiry of the prescribed period of 90 days. 2. Heard Mr. C. Samantaroy, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. Mr. Samantaroy submits that it is well settled that the prescribed period of 90 days for filing of the written statement under Order 8, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is a directory one but not mandatory and in that view of the matter, learned Court below, ought to have accepted the written statement filed by the defendant No.3, even though the same was filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied upon and cited the decision of the Apex Court ...
State of Orissa Vs. Sankar Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR657
B.P. Das, J.1. The question as to whether special provision for women in respect of employment can be made by the State in order to cater to the needs of adolescent girls and lactated women has arisen to be judicially decided in the present writ applications. The occasion has arisen as the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') has stuck down Rules 6(1) (b) and 7(2) (a) of the Orissa Children's and Women's Welfare Service Rules, 1989 (in short 'the 1989 Rules') framed by the State Government, which provided for an all women cadre for Child Development Project Officers under the Orissa Children's and Women's Welfare Service holding the same to be violative of the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in effect, as per the State, the Tribunal has set at naught the Policy of the State Government to create the aforesaid cadre for women purported to be in the interest of women and children.2. O.J.G. Nos. 6689/99 and 671 3/99 have been file...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »