Orissa Court January 2007 Judgments
Bansidhar Mohanty Vs. Madhusudan Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT413
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The orders passed in Execution Case No. 10 of 2000 arising out of Title Suit No. 324 of 1989 of the Court of the Civil Judge (JD), Jajpur are challenged in these Writ Petitions. For the sake of convenience and also with consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties all the three Writ Petitions were heard together.2. To appreciate the controversy among the parties inter se, shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts involved in these Writ Petitions are as stated below:Madhusudan Mohanty, Opposite Party No. 1 in all the three Writ Petitions, had filed Title Suit No. 329 of 1989 in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (JD), Jajpur praying for partition of the joint family properties. On 7th February, 1995 the Court below passed a preliminary decree in the said suit declaring fifty per cent share of Plaintiff-Madhusudan in the suit property. The said preliminary decree having not been challenged by any party in appeal, Plaintiff-Madhusudan filed an application befor...
Tag this Judgment!Rusinath Parida Vs. Collector
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT430
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.10.2005 passed in R.P. Case No. 26 of 2005 by the Chairman of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, dismissing the same which was filed for recalling the order of dismissal of O.A. No. 562 of 1991 which was filed by the petitioner against his removal from service.2. The main contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid O.A. was liable to be heard by the Division Bench of the Tribunal and not by the Single Member. Earlier the O.A. was listed for hearing on 05.11.1998 before the Division Bench of the Tribunal comprising of the Vice-Chairman and the Member (Judicial) and on that date the following order was passed by the Tribunal:Order No. 27 Dated 5.11.98Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that he has received the counter today filed by Learned Standing Counsel for State and prays for time to go through the same.Prayer is allowed. List it after one wee...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Benudhar Upadhya and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT409; [2007(113)FLR587]
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Judgment dated 30th June, 1999 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Ass. Labour Commissioner, Balasore in W.C. Case No. 40 of 1994 awarding a compensation of Rs. 37,063.00 in favour of petitioner-Respondent No. 1 is assailed by the National Insurance Company invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act2. In a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 7/8-5-1994 petitioner-Respondent No. 1 who was driving a trekker bearing registration number OR-OJ-7635 sustained grievous injuries on his body. He was first treated at the Balasore Hospital as an indoor patient and then shifted to the SCB Medical College Hospital at Cuttack. He filed the aforesaid case before the Commissioner claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,14,000.00.The owner of the aforesaid trekker though received notice of the case, did not appear before the Learned Commissioner for which he was set ex parte.The Appellant-Insurance Company in its writte...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Mallik Vs. Smt. Renuka Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ori65
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. The point of law that is raised in this case is as to whether a co-sharer of a joint family property after alienating a portion thereof in favour of a stranger to the joint family can opt for re-purchase along with the other co-sharers in consonance with Section 4 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Partition Act.2. To answer the said question, it would be necessary to discuss the factual matrix in brief.One Balu Malik was the original owner of the land appertaining to plot No. 87 under Khata No. 234 situate in Mouza Bidyadharpur of Cuttack district and the residential house of the family exists on a portion of the said land. Balu died in the year 1940 leaving behind him two sons, namely, Purna Chandra Mallik (present petitioner) , Bhagirathi Mallik and a grandson namely Nrusingha Mallik (son of his predeceased son Gangadhar).Bhagirathi and Nrusingha having joined hands sold a portion of the aforesaid joint family dwelling house to one Smt. Renuka Jena (...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Krishna Padhy and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-24-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT686
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners, of whom Petitioner No. 1 is the Naib Sarpanch and Petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 are the Ward Members of Bilamala Grama Panchayat, challenging the Government notification dated 10.2.2004 fixing the office headquarters of the Gram Sasan of Gram Bilamala in Tumudibandha Block of Kandhamal District at village Khadapanga under Section 4(3) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') issued by the Government of Orissa, Panchayati Raj (GP) Department.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Bilamala Gram Panchayat was constituted on 20.10.2001 in exercise of powers conferred on the State Government by Section 3 read with Section 149 of the Act. Against fixing of headquarters of the said Gram Panchayat at Bilamala, some persons made representations.before the State Government and when no decision was taken thereon, the writ application registered as W.P. (C) No. 7508 of 2003 filed by them in this Co...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwa Industrial Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ori71; 103(2007)CLT246; 2007(2)CTLJ118(Ori)
M.M. Das, J.1. A tender notice was floated by the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (for short, 'the MCL') on 20.1.2003 inviting quotations in sealed covers for supply of materials indicated in the schedule of requirement as per technical specification, which was attached as Annexure-A to the tender documents. Clause 21 of the Notice Inviting Tender was with regard to submission of Performance Bank Guarantee by the successful tenderer which reads as follows:21. PERFORMANCE BANK GUARANTEE: The performance guarantee shall be submitted by successful tenderer for 10% Value of the for destination price of the order including all taxes and duties to cover both satisfactory performance and warranty. The performance guarantee for 10% value will be taken in the form of a Bank Guarantee. The Bank guarantee shall be valid for 18 months from the date of receipt and acceptance of the equipment/materials at site and the same shall be either released or extended thereafter, as deemed fit.2. Pursuant to the...
Tag this Judgment!G. Gouri Sankara Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1194; AIR2007Ori74; 103(2007)CLT313
M.M. Das, J.1. On 8.6.1999, the son of the Petitioner who was studying in the Government Boys High School at Jeypore, went to School to obtain the mark sheet and to know his result in the examination in which he appeared. When he entered the School campus, it started raining heavily. In search of shelter, he along with two other boys stood by the side of the boundary wall of the School. The boundary wall suddenly collapsed and fell over them. Though the other two boys could escape, the son of the Petitioner was trapped under the debris. On being informed about the incident by some people, the Petitioner who is the father, rushed to the School. The son of the Petitioner was taken out from under the debris and being seriously injured was carried to the hospital where he was declared dead. The uncle of the deceased lodged information about this incident in the Jeypore Police Station. On receipt of the said information, the Inspector-in-charge of the said police station registered P.S. Cas...
Tag this Judgment!Padma Charan Nahak and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT345
1. Heard argument from both the parties and the Judgment is as follows:2. Both the Appellants together with three accused persons faced trial in Sessions Case No.39 of 1995 (S.C. No.220 of 1995-G.D.C.)in the Court of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. Out of them accused-Appellant Padma Charan Nahak and Lingaraj Nahak faced charge for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149 I.P.C. Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1980 and co-accused Pitambar Pradhan, Raju @ Rajkishore Pradhan and Raghunath Nahak faced charge for the offence under Section 302/109 I.P.C. Learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge delivered the impugned Judgment on October 28, 1996 convicting the Appellants for the offence under Sections 302/149 I.P.C, Section 148 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentencing them respectively for imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for two years and rigorous imprisonment for five years each. So far as the remaining three accused persons are concerned, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Ori)380; [2007]293ITR502(Orissa)
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. All these reference matters were heard together as common question is involved in respect of four assessment years and as such they are decided by the following judgment.The common question which falls for a decision in all these cases is:Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances, and on a true construction and interpretation of the Gazette Notification dt. 30th Aug., 1991, read with the clarification dt. 17th March, 1993 issued by the Department of Company Affairs, Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that amalgamation of OMC Alliance Ltd., the erstwhile subsidiary company with Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. became effective from 30th Aug., 1991 and not from 1st April, 1986 and consequent denying the claim of OMC for treating all the operation of the erstwhile subsidiary as that of the patent company, namely, OMC from 1st April, 1986 and resultant loss.2. It is only the above question which has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal. The mate...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwini Ku. Bohidar Vs. Satyendranath Dash and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)OLR207
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The question which needs to be determined in this writ petition is as to whether the parties, by an agreement, can confer a jurisdiction on a Court which it otherwise lacks.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as follows:The opposite parties, employees of State Bank of India as plaintiffs, filed Civil Suit No. 57 of 2003 before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Sambalpur praying for the following reliefs:I. The election and publication of the result of the office bearers of State Bank of India Staff Association, Sambalpur unit held 29.3.2003 be declared null and void; andII. The voters' list published on 26.3.2003 be declared as incomplete.3. The defendants appeared in the Court and filed their written statement taking the stand that the Civil Court at Sambalpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Clause-55 of the Rules and Constitution of the SBI Staff Association (hereinafter referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »