Orissa Court May 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.
Smt. Manjula Routray Vs. Smt. Nirupama Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR56
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) 1st Court, Cuttack in I.A. No. 291 of 2005 rejecting the application of the plaintiff-appellant filed under Order-39, Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure to restrain the respondent from making any construction over the suit land till disposal of the suit.2. The case of the appellant is that she is the owner in possession of the suit land having right, title and interest over the same. The further case of the appellant is that the land has been recorded in the name of her late husband in the consolidation R.O.R. as well as settlement R.O.R. covering an area of Ac.0.038 decimals. Taking advantage of the entry in mutation R.O.R. in respect of plot No. 681 as Ac.0.022 decimals construction work is being taken up. The further case is that the respondent managed to get nine decimals of land recorded in respect of plot No. 681 and has managed to mutate the same in her f...
Dhadi Muduli Vs. Natabar Muduli
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR43
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 31.8.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Nimapara in Title Suit No. 31 of 2003 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Order-26, Rule 9 for deputing a survey knowing commissioner as well as the order of dismissal of revision filed by him before the Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Puri.2. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction apart from other consequential reliefs. Thecase of the petitioner is that in the R.O.R. of 1927 settlement the C.S. Plot No. 1013 covering an area of Ac.0.04 decimals under C.S. Khata No. 176 in Mouza-Sudhikeshar stood recorded in the name of San Sundari Muduli and Sasi Muduli in. stitiban status and that they were possessing the same and using it as homestead. Sasi Muduli died leaving behind Nata Muduli as his only legal heir who is defendant in the suit. The plaintiff-petitioner is the legal heir of ...
Smt. Meena SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori152; 102(2006)CLT163; 2006(II)OLR90
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner who had been appointed as a sub-wholesaler in kerosene oil for Bandhapara in the district of Bolangir has filed this writ application challenging the'order passed by the Collector, Bolangir in Annexure-4 on 3.3.2001 cancelling her licence as well as the order passed by the appellate authority in Annexure-6 dated 5.7.2003 dismissing the appeal.2. The case of the petitioner is that she had been appointed as a Sub-wholesaler in Kerosene oil for the village Bandhapara in the district of Bolangir. The Collector, Bolangir issued a notice to show cause on 4.1.2001 directing the petitioner to submit her explanation as to why the licence shall not be cancelled on the grounds mentioned in the said show cause notice. The petitioner submitted her reply to the said show cause notice and the impugned order was passed by the Collector in Annexure-4 on 3.3.2001 cancelling the licence. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order of the Collector before the appe...
Lingaraj Khadanga Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR172
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition assails the order dated 23.11.2001 (Annexure-10) passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dismissing O.A. No. 223 of 1999 filed by the petitioner and confirming the order of punishment passed against him in the departmental proceeding vide Annexure-8, which was challenged on the ground of non-compliance of Sub-rule (10)(ii) of Rule-15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 as well as violation of principle of natural justice.2. The case of the petitioner is that while working as the S.D.O., Koraput, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide D.P. No. 2301 of 1986 for violation of Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956, misuse and abuse of official powers for private gain, violation of Government rules and orders, passing illegal orders, delaying the report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act wi...
Executive Engineer Kendrapara Electrical Division, Cesco Vs. Bibhu Ran ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori160
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application challenges the order dated 2-11-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Kendrapara in F.A.O. No. 75 of 2005 directing stay of operation of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara in an application for injunction excepting the order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from disconnecting the power, supply to the ground and first floor of the suit premises pending disposal of the suit.2. From the record, it appears that the opposite parties have filed Title Suit No. 549 of 2001 against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining him from disconnecting the power supply to the house in question. In the said suit, an application vide Misc. Case No. 274 of 2001 was filed for interim protection and another application vide Misc. Case No. 280 of 2001 was filed for restoration of the power supply. Both the Misc. Cases were heard by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divi...
Piyusa Kanti Mohanty Vs. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT643
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Acharya, Learned Counsel for the opposite parties.2. It appears that a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on 19.1.2004 to the effect that while he was holding the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical, T.R.W. Sub-division, Choudwar during the period from 6.8.1982 to 14.9.1991, the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Cuttack and former OSEB had entrusted about 353 (sic.) numbers of various sizes of Transformers for over-hauling and repairing to M/s. Orissa Engineers and Erectors, Tomando, Bhubaneswar, which returned 424 numbers of Transformers after repair and failed to return rest 111 numbers of transformers after repair in spite of repeated request by the concemed Executive Engineer resulting which FIR was filed by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Stores Division, Cuttack before Khandagiri Police Station which was registered as Khandagiri P.S. Case No. 96 of 1995 un...
Dasarathi Parida and After His Death Shantilata Parida and ors. Vs. Gr ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT190; 2006(II)OLR146
A.K. Samantaray, J.1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are the legal representatives and have been substituted after the death of the original petitioner, Dasarathi Parida, who expired during pendency of this writ petition, have come forward with prayer to quash the order of penalty dated 1.5.1997 (Annexure-5) imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority in a Departmental Proceeding and the order dated 17.9.1997 (Annexure-7) confirming the same by the Appellate Authority censuring him and directing for treating the period of suspension as such.2. Said Dasarathi Parida, while functioning as S.D.O. (Electrical), Mahanga Electrical Sub-Division under Salipur Electrical Division, was placed under suspension on 1.11.1995 pending Departmental Proceeding bearing No. 1179 dated 1.11.1995 (Annexure-1) on the charges of gross negligence in duty, gross inefficiency in collection of Board's dues leading to heavy loss on the part of ...
Bandhu Das and anr. Vs. Uttam Charan Pattanaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ori24; 2006(II)OLR80
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants were the defendants in the trial Court against whom the plaintiff-respondent had filed T.S. No. 109 of 1981. The said suit was decreed in part. Aggrieved, the plaintiff-respondent filed T.A. No. 10 of 1983 before the lower appellate Court, which was allowed. The present appeal is against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court.2. The suit was filed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the suit property i.e., C.S. Plot Nos. 104 and 105, originally belonged to one Nimei Charan Pattanaik from whom by registered sale deed 12.10.1971 he had purchased the same for good consideration. He got delivery of possession thereof and possessed the same peacefully without any interruption. The defendants having no right, title and interest over the land created disturbances in his possession, for ...
Srikhetra, A.C. Bhakti-vedanta Swami Charitable Trust Vs. the Assistan ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR75
ORDER1. Heard Shri B. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Mohapatra, teamed counsel for the Revenue.2. Pursuant to our order dated 5.5.2006 the learned Counsel for the Revenue has produced before us the relevant records. It appears from the records that it was brought to the notice of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application which was filed by the petitioner is misplaced.3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that once an application is filed under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for registration, the Commissioner may call for such documents or information from the trust or institution as are required to satisfy himself about the genuineness of activities of the trust or institution and the Commissioner may also make such other inquiries as he may deem necessary. Section 12AA(b) of the Act provides that after satisfying himself about the objects of the trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities...
Sankar Muduli Vs. Madhab @ Sukanta Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT150
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard. For the reasons stated below, leave to appeal against order of acquittal is refused.2. Opposite party members faced trial in S.T. Case No. 28/309 of 2002 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda on the charge of murder punishable under Section 302/34, IPC.3. Fact situation available from the Lower Court's record is that in the night of 19.5.1999, Purna Chandra Muduli (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') went outside together with accused-opposite party No. 1 on a bicycle to witness Opera. In the same night one Biranchi Narayan Harichandan (P.W. 4) came and informed in the house of the deceased that at about 10 p.m. he saw the deceased on N.H. No. 5 lying with head injuries. Accused-opposite party No. 1 in semi-conscious stage and the deceased in unconscious stage with injuries were brought to the hospital at about 10.30 p.m. on 19.5.1999. After giving preliminary treatment, because of the serious condition of both the persons, the doctor (D.W....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »