Orissa Court September 2006 Judgments
Bansidhar Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT841; 2006(II)OLR597
L. Mohapatra, J.1. All these criminal writ applications involve common question of law and, therefore they are taken up together. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties in the said cases as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel were heard.2. The prayer in all the writ applications are different but since they involve a common question, they have been tagged together.i. in some of the writ applications the grievance is inaction on the part of the police in registering the F.I.R.ii. in some of the writ applications the grievance is that even though the F.I.R. has been registered, investigation is not being taken up.iii. in some of the writ applications the grievance is that though the F.I.R. has been registered, investigation is not being conducted properly.iv. and in some of the writ applications the prayer is for transfer of investigation to some other agency on the ground of improper investigation.3. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Cement Limited and ors. Vs. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT521; 2007(2)CTLJ100(Ori); 2006(II)OLR642
R.N. Biswal, J.1. As per the writ petition, petitioner No. 1 was incorporated in 1985 under the Companies Act, 1956. In the year 1997 it took over a sick cement unit established at Teleghana in the district of Sundargarh which was being run earlier by IPI-SP Cement Company Limited, a joint sector unit under the State Government. To run the cement unit, petitioner No. 1 applied to opp. party No. 4 for supply of coal by way of coal linkage, in response to which the General Manager (Marketing) of the said opp. party intimated vide letter dated 22.7.1988 (Annexure-1) that it was decided to fix up final linkage for the petitioner No. 1's unit at maximum permissible quantity of 2500 M.T. coal per month and that opp. party No. 1 would supply it coal on the basis of annual recommendation of concerned sponsoring authority i.e. Director, Industry of Orissa. Accordingly, on basis of the recommendation of the Sponsoring Authority, coal was being supplied to the petitioner by opp. party No. 1 from ...
Tag this Judgment!Sribatsa Kumar Mohapatra, Dr. and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)1LLJ214Ori
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. These are two sets of the writ petitions, out of which first five writ petitions have been tiled against the judgment and order dated March 18, 2005 and last two writ petitions have been filed against different common judgment and order dated March 3, 2005. Both the orders and judgments have been passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and Cuttack respectively in different original applications.2. Since in all these cases, the impugned orders are based on interpretation of 'teaching experience' as defined in 3(k) of the Orissa Medical Education Service (Recruitment) Rules 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1979'), they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. In first set of the writ petitions containing five cases, O.A. No. 2052 (C) of 2001 was filed by the private opposite parties of the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 4670 of 2005, namely, Dr. Sarojkanta Sahoo, Dr. K.C.. Mohapatra, Dr. Braja Mohan Mishra, Dr. Y. Tej Kumar and Dr. Jag...
Tag this Judgment!P. Bengali Patro and 21 ors., Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT103
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. These are three Writ Petitions filed against the three Judgment and orders passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and its Cuttack Bench in three different O.As. Since in all these Writ Petitions, the matter relates to seniority, promotion and reservation of Head Masters of Government M.E./UGME Schools, they were heard together and are disposed of by this Judgment.2. The first impugned order was passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, on 21.8.1997 which is under challenge in O.J.C. No. 13377 of 1997. The second impugned Order dated 04.10.1997 was passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar which is under challenge in O.J.C. No. 1153 of 1998 and the last impugned order was passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, on 07.11.1998 which is under challenge in O.J.C. No. 4193 of 1999. The first and second Judgment of the Tribunal dated 21.08.1997 and 04.10.1997 were passed by the then Chairman of the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Kailash Chandra Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ675Ori
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 2, 1994 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Employees Insurance Court, Cuttack in E.S.I. Misc. Case No. 7/1994 allowing the prayer of the respondents and directing the Superintendent, E.S.I. Hospital, Choudwar to verify the Out Patient Register for the period from May 7, 1992 to June 21, 1992 and ascertain the nature of disease which the employees named therein suffered and further directing that if on verification it is found that the disease was of such nature which would have necessitated certain employees to abstain from duty, such employees should be issued regulation certificate whereupon the authority shall extend them sickness benefits in accordance with law.2. The respondents are the employees of the Orissa Textile Mills (in short 'O.T.M.'), Choudwar, Cuttack which is a Government of Orissa Undertaking and is covered under the E.S.I. Act. The Act provides for grant of cash benefits to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bijay Majhi and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ori48
M.M. Das, J. 1. The petitioners In this writ petition arc members of different Cooperative Societies as well as elected Directors of different Primary Co-operative Societies. Challenge is made in this writ petition to the notification of the Government in its Co-operation Department dated 23-12-2004 and 13-7-2005 which were published In the Orissa Gazette on 27-12-2004 and 14-7-2005 respectively as arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') besides the other grounds as narrated therein. The prayer as made in the writ petition is quoted hereunder:The petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why the reservations made in the Co-operative Act and Rule and the Election Rule-1992 vide Annexure-3 shall not Be held ultra vires and accordingly shall not be quashed;As...
Tag this Judgment!Chintamani Sahu and ors. Vs. Commissioner-cum-secretary, School and Ma ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT856; [2007(112)FLR833]; 2006(II)OLR615
ORDERI. Mahanty, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition is only confined to petitioner No. 1-Chintamani Sahu in view of the order dated 16.5.2006.2. The prayer of the petitioner in the present writ application is to direct the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bolangir-Opp. Party No. 5 to accept the application of the petitioner for consideration for appointment to the post of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak under the District Inspector of Schools, Bolangir. The petitioner claims himself to be a physically handicapped person belonging to Bolangir district and claims that the Opp. Parties have refused to accept his application for appointment as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Opp. Parties and a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Orissa Association for the Blind and Ors. v. State of ...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanan Panda and ors. Vs. Premlal Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT496; 2006(II)OLR797
I. Mahanty, J.1. In the present application, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 27.2.1998 (Annexure- 3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation (O.P. No. 9) in Revision Case No. 51 of 1994 allowing the revision and reversing the order dated 29.4.1992 (Annexure- 1) passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the appellate order dated 18.9.1993 (Annexure- 2) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.2. The petitioners seek to challenge the order (Annexure-3) passed in the Revision by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation, inter alia, on the ground that the Revisional Authority had failed to take proper account of the principle of res judicata and in particular, the provisions of Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure and erroneously came to the conclusion that the claim of adoption by Premlal-opposite party No. 1, was not barred by the principle of res judicata.3. At the outset, it is necessary to take note of the genaology of the parties which is as fol...
Tag this Judgment!Trinath Sahoo Vs. the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT479; [2007(113)FLR983]; 2006(II)OLR812
I. Mahanty, J.1. The petitioner while working as the Supervisor in Malkangiri Branch of Koraput Central Co-operative Bank was placed under suspension on 14.2.2001 on the basis of various allegations, inter alia, that the petitioner while working as the Managing Director in Korkunda LAMPS in Malkangiri District along with one Subal Rout, the Accountant have misappropriated an amount of Rs. 13,86,060/-. Necessary charge sheet was issued to him on 28.4.2001 and the notice of proposed punishment of dismissal was issued to the petitioner on 14.5.2003.The petitioner challenged the aforesaid notice of proposed punishment before this Court inW.P.(C) No. 5314 of 2003 and the said writ petition while not being entertained, this Court dismissed the same by directing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal challenging the action of the Disciplinary Authorities within a period of four weeks from the date of the said order (17.6.2003) and granted interim stay of the operation of the impugned order f...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Mandal Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT36
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Though this matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner, who is accused in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2001 of the Court of Learned Adl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri for the offence under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act failed to appear at the stage of accused statement for a considerable time for which the Learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for adjournment presented by the Learned Counsel for the accused and after hearing the argument on the same day, delivered the judgment, in which he convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A. IPC. Since the accused-petitioner was not available for hearing on the matter of sentence, Learned Trial Court issued N.B.W. along with process under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and also noticed the bailor to produce the accused-petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »