Orissa Court August 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.
Khatiza Begum Vs. K. Srinivas Rao
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR525
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 22.7.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore in I.A. No. 7 of 2005 rejecting her application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C.2. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that late Hazi Yousuf Alli Madani was the owner in possession of 'A' schedule property and after his death, his three sons and three daughters succeeded to the property alongwith his widow, Nurjahan. Two of the sons were unmarried and died and one of the daughters namely, Hussani died leaving behind the plaintiff-appellant as her sole successor. Another daughter namely,3. Tahira died leaving behind defendants 3, 4 and 5. The widow of Hazi Yousuf Alli Madani also died while in jointness. According to the plaintiff-appellant, 'A' schedule property is being enjoyed only by the defendants 1 to 5. The allegation in the plaint is that the defendant No. 1 Sayed Mohammed Madani being the eldest was ...
State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Chhanda Charan Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT827; 2006(II)OLR595
Pradip Mohanty, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the State of Orissa challenging the order dated 28.01.2005 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No. 2471 (C) of 2000. The said O.A. was filed by the opposite party for a direction to the instant petitioners to treat the period of service rendered by him under the Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation (for short, 'the OSCTC'), i.e., from 07.08.1967 to 11.12.1984 as pensionary service, revise his retiral benefits accordingly and pay the same to him. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the present petitioners to consider the option of the applicant-opposite party on his depositing the entire C.P.F. amount with simple interest from the date of receipt till deposit. The amount was to be deposited within two months whereafter the present petitioners were to take action regarding revision of pension along with other terminal benefit...
Ram Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR465
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The appellant assails the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 1.08.1989 passed by Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R.No. 4 of 1987 convicting him of the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(1) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'E.C.Act') and sentencing him thereunder to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for three months more.2. Succinctly stated the prosecution case is that on 5.5.1986 at about 11.30 A.M. the Inspector of Supplies, Jharsuguda, (P.W.2) along with another Supply Inspector (P.W.1) visited the shop premises of the accused at Jharsuguda, after the name 'Shakti Store' and found the accused in possession of 2.20 rims of white paper, soda ash weighing 4.10 quintals, 4.40 quintals of common salt and 30 Kgs. of potato. He had not displayed the stock position of each essential commodity and retail selling price thereof in the stock-cum-price board and thereby violated ...
Ananta Parida Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR737
M.M. Das, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu challenges the order of detention dated 25.10.2005 issued by the District Magistrate, Puri under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') on various grounds.2. The petitioner-detenu's case, in brief, is that he is the President of the Delanga Hat on being elected by the majority of the shop owners till the year 2005 when the order of detention was passed. The petitioner-detenu's younger brother was murdered by some anti-socials on 29.8.2005 for which he lodged an information in the Delanga Police Station and a case was registered thereon being Delanga P.S. Case No. 95 (10)/2005 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 317 of 2005 under Sections 302/294/34, IPC. It is the further case of the petitioner-detenu that due to political rivalry he was implicated in various criminal cases and in furtherance of such political vendetta against him the impugned order of detent...
Satyanarayan Bhandar Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: (2007)5VST83(Orissa)
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. Since both the tax revision cases involve identical facts and raise identical questions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In both the tax revision cases, two questions of law were raised for consideration of this Court and out of those two questions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued only one. The question on which both the tax revision cases were argued is as under:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that Robinson barley is not covered under SI. No. 33 vide notification dated June 30, 1990 and is not taxable at the first point of sale ?3. The material facts of the case which gave rise to the aforesaid question are narrated below:M/s. Satyanarayan Bhandar, the petitioner in both the cases, is a registered partnership firm and carries on business in grocery, stationery, manohary goods, ayurvedic medicines, pan masala and salt, etc. The petitioner is a registe...
Biju @ Sithila Kumar Panda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR438
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.2. This is a petition under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is facing trial as an accused in G.R. case No. 1111/2003 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 294, 354, 506 and 493 of the I.P.C. Being aggrieved by order dated 23.3.2006 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar the petitioner has approached this Court. It appears that after completion of the investigation and submission of charge sheet, the Court below took cognizance of the offences under the aforesaid sections. Thereafter a petition was filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner with a prayer to discharge the accused. According to Mr. Ray, learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was no materials to take cognizance under Section 493 of the I.P.C.3. The order dated 12.5.2006 reveals that a...
Sri Bireswar Das Mohapatra and anr. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR423
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the guarantors to the loanee who obtained loan from the State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, Industrial Estate Branch (hereinafter referred to as the 'SBI'). The petitioners are also erstwhile Managing Director and Director of M/s. East End Engineers (P) Ltd., which is a Company under the Companies Act and the loanee from the Bank.2. The material facts of the case are the said Company, namely, M/s. East End Engineers (P) Ltd. took loans from SBI after executing security documents and creating equitable mortgage of immovable property supported by the guarantee of the petitioners. In order to realise its loans, SBI filed on 28.7.1993 a suit in the Civil Court being TMS No. 207 of 1993. Thereafter the said company was declared sick and under the provisions of SICA the BIFR made a recommendation under Section 20 of SICA for its winding up. On the basis of such recommendation by the BIFR, winding up proceeding commenced before the learned...
All Orissa Progress Assistants' Association represented through Its Ge ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT130
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. The instant writ application has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.9.2005 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 706 of 2005 wherein the petitioner-Association was the applicant.2. It appears that a review meeting was held on 17.6.2004 presided by the Chief Minister, Orissa to review anti-poverty programme and to tender services for their implementation. It was resolved therein that each block should have an Additional Block Development Officer (in short 'A.B. D.O.) and 136 such posts can be created by merging posts of Progress Assistants and Grama Panchayat Extension Officers into one cadre and each block should also have one Panchayat Development Officer.3. Although in the above resolution decision to merge the said post was not taken and as such it was, not notififed; but the petitioner filed the above mentioned O.A. before the Tribunal against the order creating of 136 posts of Additional Bl...
Birendra Mohan Gouda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR654
A.S. Naidu, J.1 The order dated 28.1.2006 passed by the SDJM, Sambalpur in CMA No. 18 of 2006 arising out of 2(b) CC No. 1 of 2006 is assailed in this case by the petitioner.2. The moot question that needs determination in this case is whether a vehicle seized for alleged commission of an offence under the Wild Life Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can be released in the Zima of the owner thereof pending final decision in the case. In the present case a Maruti Esteem car bearing registration number OR-05-N-9239 was seized by the Forest Range Officer, Town Range, Sambalpur for alleged commission of offence in contravention of Section 9 read with Sections 2(20)/39/40/51/(1) of the Act. The fact of such seizure was reported to the SDJM, Sambalpur on the basis of which the aforesaid complaint case was registered. The learned SDJM on being prima facie satisfied about commission of the alleged offences has taken cognizance thereof. The petitioner claimi...
Ashok Kumar Satpathy Vs. the Collector and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT1; 2006(II)OLR725
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.2. The order dated 20.7.2006 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar in a proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act confiscating the vehicle in question and directing sale of the same.3. In the impugned order, the Collector, Keonjhar has held that for contravention of the provision of Clause 8 of Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 and Clause 3 of Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 the vehicle in question is liable for confiscation. However, option was not given to the petitioner as provided under second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of the Act. The second proviso to the aforesaid Section clearly gives liberty to the petitioner to exercise his option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation and in the event the owner/petitioner exercises that option, the Collector has to pass orders accordingly.4. From the impugned order, it appears that such opti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »