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.
Mangilal Agarwalla and ors. Vs. Smt. Manjulata Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR485
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Order dated 17.12.1996 of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talcher in Title Suit No. 15 of 1990 and Judgment of learned Addl. District Judge, Angul in Civil Revision No. 34/11 of 1996-1997 are under challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Plaintiffs are the petitioners and defendants are the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4.2. The fact noted in the impugned orders is not in dispute. According to plaintiffs' case before the Court below, lands appertaining to Plot No. 1589 having an area of Ac. 0.130 decimals and Plot No. 1590 having an area of Ac. 0.030 decimals under Khata No. 954 of mouza-Nizigarh town, Talcher is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3. Residential houses have been constructed on the western side of Plot No. 1589 and on a part of Plot No. 1590 by leaving a space of four links in east-west and sixty-five links in north-south and that stripe of land is the disputed suit land. Plot Nos. 1591 and 1591/2984 are a...
State of Orissa, Through Collector and anr. Vs. Daitari Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: 2007(I)OLR52
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Rourkela in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1985 confirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsif, Bonai in Title Suit No. 6 of 1984.2. The present respondents, as plaintiffs, filed Title Suit No. 6 of 1984 in the Court of learned Munsif, Bonai asking for declaration of their right and title over the suit property and also for declaration that the institution of Encroachment Case No. 116 of 1984 under O.P.L.E. Act for their eviction from the suit land is null and void and without any jurisdiction. Prayer for permanent injunction restraining the present appellants from evicting respondents from the suit land was also sought for.The case of the plaintiffs is essence, is that, their father was the owner in possession and recorded tenant in respect of the suit land, but in the current settlement inadvertently the said land was recorded in the name of the State. The plaintiffs f...
Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: (2007)6VST461(Orissa)
I. Mahanty, J.1. M/s. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. (in short, 'TSIL') which has set up a sponge iron factory at Bileipada, Joda, in the district of Keonjhar, Orissa, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ application, challenging different orders passed by various authorities, more particularly:(A) Restriction of the period of sales tax benefits as per IPR, 1992 as an 'EMD' unit (annexure 1)(B) Order of the Director of Industries in not amending the eligibility certificate to take into account the entire investment made by the petitioner on plant and machinery and for fixing the limit of sales tax concession below the amount that the petitioner was otherwise entitled to under the IPR, 1992, (annexure 2)(C) Non-grant of capital investment subsidy by the Government as per IPR, 1992 (annexure 3).2. Consequently, challenging the unlawful action/inaction of the State of Orissa in preventing the petitioner from obtaining all the benefits to which it claimed to be entitled under the Industrial P...
Ghanashyam Parida Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)OLR217
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 53 of 1987 convicting the appellant under Section 332, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as a Junior Engineer, P.H.D., Keonjhar now working as Assistant Engineer, GPHD, Sambalpur. He was allotted one house of the Municipality as a tenant since long where he was staying. He was asked several times to vacate the quarters by the Executive Officer but he failed to vacate the same. He had also constructed a cowshed adjoining the quarters. Thereafter the Executive Officer obtained orders from the Chairman of the Municipality to get the quarters vacated and the unauthorised construction adjoining to the house demolished with the police help. Consequently, the Octroi Superintendent, Mr. Kalpataru Chakra and the officials of the Mun...
Sk. Illias Vs. Co-operative for American Relief Everywhere, India and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ori9
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 26.6.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No. 64 of 1992 allowing an application filed by the defendants 1 to 4 and 9 under Order 6, Rule 16 of the C.P.C. in Challenging the said order, the petitioner had earlier filed Civil Revision No. 287 of 1999 before this Court and the said Civil Revision was disposed of as not maintainable in view of the amendment in the C.P.C. and accordingly this writ application has been filed.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Field Officer in October, 1976 under opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. There were several allegations regarding sex abuse in the office and some instances of sex abuse by the high officials of opposite party No. 1 were witnessed by the petitioner accidentally and he had brought them to the notice of the highest authority of the opposite party No. 1 with the sole intention of eradicating such activ...
Sabitri Khuntia and ors. Vs. Ram Avatar Modi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR445
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is a revision by the Judgment-debtors of Execution Case No. 52 of 2001 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court, Cuttack challenging the legality of the order passed by the said Court in Misc. Case No. 115 of 2002 rejecting their objection filed under Section 47 of the C.P.C.2. The brief fact leading to the present situation can be narrated summarily as follows:The present petitioners as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 49 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court, Cuttack praying for declaration of their title over the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint. The present opp. party as defendant while denying the pleadings and claim of the plaintiffs filed counter claim for damages and permanent injunctions. The Court after considering the evidences, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, but allowed the counter-claim of the defendant in part allowing the prayer for permanent injunction. In that decree the plaint...
Syed Khursed Ali Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ori56; 2006(II)OLR557
M.M. Das, J.1. Though the writ petition was listed for admission, as pleadings are complete, with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner in this writ petition prays for quashing the order dated 26.8.2002 under Annexure-12, by which the agreement executed between the petitioner and the Government of Orissa has been terminated. It has been further prayed by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the opp. party No. 2 to refund the security deposit made by the petitioner.3. In order to resolve the dispute between the parties, it would be necessary to state the facts in brief.A tender notice for supply of animal feed for the year 2002-03 was published by the Director, Nandankanan Zoological Park, Mayur Bhawan, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-opp. party No. 2. The petitioner who was one of the bidders having quoted the lowest price, his offer was accepted under the letter dated 19.3.2002 (Annexure-1) and he was asked to make a secu...
State of Orissa (L.A. Zone Officer) Vs. Giridhari Nayak
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR329
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.12.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 128 of 1998 in response to a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. Government of Orissa acquired Ac.8.94 dec. of land out of Khata No. 48 of village Bhatasingh in the district of Deogarh belonging to the respondent for the purpose of Rengali Dam Project vide Notification dated 24.5.1980 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and awarded a compensation of Rs. 31,906.10 paise to the respondent who had half share in the acquired land. The respondent felt that the compensation paid is grossly inadequate and prayed for referring the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. On such reference being made by the Land Acquisition Officer the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Deogarh. In the L.A. Case the respondent examined 2 witnes...
Sri Fani Bhusan Nanda Vs. Kshiti Sundari Nanda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC751; 2006(II)OLR490
A.K. Parichha, J.1. The present Revision is against an order dated 11.09.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Execution Proceeding No. 22 of 2003 rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner- J. Dr. under Section 47 of the C.P.C. to the execution filed for recovery of the maintenance amount by the Opposite party-D.Hr.2. The opposite party, who is the widow of Jagamohan Nanda filed a case under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in O.S.No. 54 of 1994 against the present petitioner, who happens to be the brother of the aforesaid Jagamohan Nanda. The Court after hearing the parties rejected the petition where after the present opposite party carried the matter to this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1996 and this Court while allowing that appeal directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to the opp. party till her death. Pursuant to that order, the opposite party as D. Hr. filed the Execution Case for recovery of the mai...
Ratnakar Mallik and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR466
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. The above criminal appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 23.03.1987 passed by the 1 st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. No. 78 of 1986 convicting the appellants under Section 304-II read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.During pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 1-Ratnakar Mallick has died. Therefore, the appeal stands abated as against him.2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded during trial, is that on 31.08.1985 when Musei Dhal (since dead) was performing weeding operation in his land, the accused persons being armed with deadly weapons all on a sudden surrounded him. Accused-appellants Ratnakar, Michhu (son of Ratnakar) and Lokanath assaulted the deceased with lathis and Bahuings. The other accused persons assaulted Biswanath @ Biswambar, Bhagaban, Purna, Shyamsundar and Siba. On the same day, FIR was lodged at 9 p.m. at Badachana P.S. by the deceased himself and on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »