Orissa Court January 2007 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.
Susanta Kumar Patra Vs. R.T.O.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ori87
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. These are nine writ petitions filed against the seizure of the vehicles of the petitioners under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Regional Transport Officers raising the grievance that their vehicles bearing registration numbers mentioned against the number of each of the writ petitions noted below have been seized and detained for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. W.P. (C) No. Vehicle No.1. 262 of 2007 OR-02-Y-06042. 263 of 2007 OR-19-B-16993. 264 of 2007 OR-05-E-45914. 265 of 2007 OR-05-N-87775. 266 of 2007 OR-05-T-20996. 267 of 2007 OR-05-E-02917. 291 of 2007 OR-02-C-25888. 292 of 2007 OR-25-96679. 293 of 2007 OR-02-L-55672. Some of the learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Regional Transport Officers have not proceeded further after seizure of the vehicles but some of the learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Regional ...
Open Learning Systems and Gourimani Sahoo and ors. Vs. State of Orissa ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT81
M.M. Das, J. 1. As both the above Writ Petitions arise out of common facts and were heard together, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.2. W.P(C) No. 6118 of 2006 has been filed by the Open Learning Systems which is a Non-Government Voluntary is Organization and registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said organization has sought for quashing the Order dated 17.4.2006 of the Government rejecting the application of the Petitioner dated 12.9.2005 for allotment of plot no G-3-A/2 in Revenue Plot No. 4704 (part) under khata No. 1074 in mouza-Gadakana. The Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the Opp. Parties to allot the above land in favour of the Petitioner.3. W.P.(C) No. 6655 of 2006 has been filed by the number of Petitioners claiming themselves to be the parents of the mentally, physically and emotionally handicapped children who have been provided with education, treatment and rehabilitation by the organization i.e., Open Learning ...
Niranjan Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR490(Orissa); 104(2007)CLT140
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39, of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Appellant-Contractor inter alia challenges the Order dated 05.12.2000 passed in Misc. Case No. 249 of 1999 arising out of T.S No. 225 of 1999 by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar.2. The Appellant entered into a contract with the Respondent-Railways on 28.3.1990 for supply of 12000-cum, of hard broken stone ballest of 50 mm size and to spread the same on the railway track in between Gorakha Nath-Rahama Station of Cuttack-Paradeep Section. It is submitted that soon after execution of the agreement the Appellant-Contractor commenced the work. He made necessary arrangements for collection and supply of hard broken ballest of the required size. It is alleged that though the Contractor was always ready and willing to execute the work but due to non-cooperation of the concerned Engineer of the Railways he could not proceed with the work, nor could complete the same within the time stipu...
Indian Charge Chrome Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)11VST844(Orissa)
I. Mahanty, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Limited, a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'ICCL') is carrying on its business in the State of Orissa, by establishing a Charge Chrome factory at Choudwar in the district of Cuttack where it manufactures charge chrome and exports its products and is declared as a 100 per cent Export Oriented Unit (in short 'EOU').2. A letter of intent was issued on October 22, 1982 to ICCL for setting up a 100 per cent export oriented undertaking at Choudwar, District Cuttack for manufacture and export of 50,000 MTPY of high carbon ferro chrome/charge chrome. The said letter of intent was converted to Industrial licence on July 3, 1989.3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-ICCL seeking a direction to the Director of Industries (opposite party No. 5) to rectify/ correct the eligibility certificate for exemption of sales tax indicating the actual 'install...
Capt. Pramod Chandra Mishra Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR834]
A.K. Ganguly and N. Prusty, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.5.2006 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal for review of its earlier order dated 5.10.2005.3. From the order which has been passed by the Tribunal it appears that the petitioner was an Ex-Service man who was appointed under the State Government on retirement from active duty. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-finalisation of his pension and non-release of gratuity for the reason that there is a case of defalcation of Rs. 5,100/- initiated against him by the Vigilance Department. The proceeding initiated by the Vigilance Department is under investigation and the said investigation has not yet been completed.4. Under these circumstances, the petitioner requested opposite party No. 1 represented through its Principal Secretary to Government of Orissa, Home Department, Bhubaneswar on 21.2.2005 to grant his normal pension and ...
Jogendra Bhoi and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT403
1. Heard argument from both the parties, hearing is concluded and the Judgment is as follows.2. Appellants were accused persons in S.T. No. 147/36 of 1996 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. They were prosecuted for the offence of murder and accordingly charged under Section 302/34, I.P.C. The impugned Judgment was delivered on 31.03.1997. Trial Court found the Appellants guilty of the offence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and for that conviction, sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. That Judgment is under challenge in this appeal.3. Prosecution case, which reveals from the F.I.R., evidence of the family members of the deceased and the impugned Judgment, is that Jenamani Bhoi, the deceased (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') faced a criminal case at the behest of the family of the accused persons and was acquitted in that case in the previous year of the date of occurrence, i.e., 16.07.1995. About a few days before the aforesaid date of occurrence, Jagamati ...
Golekha Behari Senapati Vs. Debdas Mansingh and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT243
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The order dated 10-10-2006 passed by the Learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, FTC-IV, Bhubaneswar in Interim Application No. 19 of 2006 arising out of Title Suit No. 69 of 1999 is assasiled in this Writ Petition by the Plaintiff in that suit under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Admittedly the Petitioner has filed the aforesaid Title Suit with the following prayer:(a) Let the Hon'ble Court be pleased to draw a preliminary decree in respect of fifty per cent interest of the Plaintiff over the Schedule-A and B landed property and the parties be directed to effect partition among themselves within a stipulated period fixed by the Hon'ble Court failing which survey knowing commissioner be appointed to effect partition among the parties in respect of Schedule A and B landed property and the share of the Plaintiff given to him through process of law;(b) Cost of the suit be decreed;(c) The Defendants be permanently injuncted to make any construction over...
Maheswar Behera Vs. Radhashyam Behera and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT419
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20-1-2004 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (JD), Jaleswar in Original Suit No. 917 of 1994 refusing to condone the petition delay and rejecting the petitions for setting aside abatement and substitution.2. It appears that the petitioner was the Plaintiff in the aforesaid Original Suit which was one for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the disputed property. During pendency of the suit on 15th of February, 1999 the sole Defendant died leaving behind him his legal representatives. A Memo, was thereafter filed under Order 22, Rule 9 CPC by the Counsel for the said Defendant intimating the Court about the fact of death. But then no steps were taken by the Plaintiff-petitioner to substitute the deceased sole Defendant. As a consequence, by order dated 20-9-2000 the Court below observing that no steps had been taken for substitution of the deceased sole Defendant, dismissed the suit as abate...
Biraja Sankar Mishra Vs. Mrs. Uma Mitra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT221
A.S. Naidu, J.1. A counter-claim filed by Defendant No. 2 under Order 8, Rule 6A(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure having been rejected by order dated 12-4-2004 by the Civil Judge (SD), Bhubaneswar in O.S. No. 16 of 1987, invoking jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the said Defendant has approached this Court.2. The aforesaid O.S.No.16 of 1987 was filed by the present Opposite parties 1 to 4 on 17-1-1987 inter alia praying:(a) For possession of their respective purchased areas as shown in the schedule be confirmed and if during the pendency of the suit the Plaintiffs are found to be dispossessed their possession be recovered through Court.(b) For restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 permanently from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs.(c) For costs and other ancillary reliefs.3. After receiving notice of the suit, the Defendants filed their written statement on 21-6-1987 (wrongly mentioned as '1-7-1987' in the impugned order). The suit ...
National Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Sarada Patra and ors. and Dilip Ku ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1347; 103(2007)CLT316
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The award dated 10th October, 1991 passed by the 2nd MACT, Cuttack in Misc. Case Nos. 120 of 1984 and 240 of 1984 is assailed by the National Insurance Company in both these appeals.2. Mr. P.Roy, Learned Counsel for the Appellants relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1992(2) TAC 576 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramani Bewa and Ors.) and 1992(2) TAC 579 (Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company v. Raghunath Muduli) submitted that in absence of insurance policy of the offending vehicle, compensation could not be saddled on the insurer alone. In the said decisions, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:The statutory prescription is that no person against whom a claim is made shall on demand by or on behalf of the person making the claim to state whether or not he was insured in respect of that liability by any policy issued or would have been so insured if the insurer had not avoided or cancelled the policy nor shall he refuse, if he was or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »