Orissa Court July 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.
Santosh Kumar Malty Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR308
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This is one of the unique cases where the petitioner, an old man, seeks to quash the entire proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1058(A)/2000 (Trial No. 80(A)/2001 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Balasore invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The said G.R. Case was initiated against the son of the petitioner Sidheswar Maity and the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C. It was alleged that the petitioner was not arrested and was shown as an absconder and the G.R. Case was split up and was committed to the Court of Session so far as his son Sidheswar Maity is concerned. He faced trial in S.T. Case No. 54/1 66 of 2004/2001 and by judgment dt. 18th June, 2005 has been acquitted. The petitioner has approached this Court solely on the ground that the local police is now trying to arrest him by executing the N.B.W. and he has no other way out but to approach this Court. To dispose of this case, it would be prude...
Ahalya Mangaraj Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR411
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Heard Mr. Lalitencea Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.2. Perused the record produced by the learned Additional Government-Advocate.3. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 3.4.2006 passed by the learned Collector, Kalahandi in G.P. Case No. 6 of 2005 under Section 25 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') disqualifying the petitioner to hold the post of Sarpanch of Chapriya G.P. in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 26 of the Act. The ground of disqualification of the petitioner has been indicated in the impugned order of the Collector that the petitioner has three living children.4. At the outset, it is necessary to peruse the relevant provisions under Sections 25 and 26 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, which are quoted hereunder:Disqualification for membership of Grama Panchayat(1) a person shall be disqualified for being elected o...
Naren Palai Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT497
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the opposite parties to allow him as the ex-officio President to reconstitute the Governing Body of the Institute 'Bhadrak Institute of Engineering and Technology, Bhadrak' in accordance with law and direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to take over the management of the Bhadrak Institute of Engineering and Technology, Barapada by appointing an officer as the management in-charge till formation of a valid Governing Body under the Chairmanship of the petitioner. The petitioner further has prayed for a direction to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to take immediate action for recovery of the amount in terms of the audit report from time to time and fix up the responsibility against the erstwhile President of the Governing Body and recover the amounts as found by the audit party.2. The petitioner's case in brief without unnecessary details is that 'Barapada school of Engi...
Southern Medical Specialities Ltd. Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori175
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. In all the three writ petitions common question of law and fact being involved, on the prayer and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they have been taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.2. One . is the writ petitioner in O.J.C. No. 11116 of 1999 with a prayer to quash the seizure of the Industrial Unit by the State Financial Corporation and for a direction to release the same in favour of the petitioner's company. The writ petitioner claims that M/s. Ashoka Health Care (P) Ltd. had set up a hospital at Bhubaneswar availing a term loan from opposite party No. 1, the State Financial Corporation. On default of payment of the loan dues, said unit was seized by the Corporation on 8-2-1999 but no notice as prescribed under the Rules had been served on the petitioner and the seizure was done behind his back. While admitting default in payment of the instalments, default has been explained on the ground that the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›