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.
indrajeet Naik Vs. Sri Sri Brahmapura Gopinath Mahaprabhu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT473
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bargarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 361 of 2006 restraining the opp. parties therein to enter upon the disputed land.2. The present petitioner was opp. party No. 4 and the opp. parties were petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bargarh in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Case. The case of the petitioners therein is that the deity Sri Sri Brahmapura Gopinath Mahaprabhu, Bije at Jhaduapada, Sambalpur is the owner and in possession of the 'A' schedule land. The said land was recorded in the name of the deity in the final Consolidation khata No. 35 of mouza.Tupapara under Attabira Tahasil in the district of Bargarh. Affairs of the said deity is being managed by a Trust duly formed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Sambalpur of which Sri Chittaranjan Panda is the Managing Trustee. Petitioner No. 2 was cultivating the 'A' schedule land on 'KARA' basis. Like pr...
Gajendra Behera and anr. Vs. Secretary, Balasore-bhadrak Central Co-op ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR463(Orissa); 103(2007)CLT231
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. A short question is involved in this case to the effect that whether after an award passed by the Arbitrator, the Opposite party can proceed otherwise than the procedure given in the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') for execution of award by making an order to the effect that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month shall be realized from the monthly salary bills of the Petitioners who are the guarantors to the loan amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- granted to the original borrower.2. The brief fact of the case are that one Agani Sahu approached the Opposite party for granting loan to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The Petitioners-the employees of the bank were the guarantors for the loan which was granted and disbursed in the year 1997 by the Opposite party. After receiving the amount of loan, the original borrower, i.e., Agani Sahu defaulted in making payment of instalments. Thereafter though the bank took the recourse of attaching the mortgage proper...
Chintamani Naik Vs. Subhadra Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT261
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 11 of 1993 of the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (SD), Keonjhar challenges the order dated 9th May, 2001 rejecting MJC No. 35 of 1998 filed by him under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default.2. Admittedly the Title Suit which was one for partition had been posted to 3-7-1998 for hearing. On the said date in the first hour the Plaintiff sought adjournment through his Counsel on the ground that the latter was ill. The said petition was rejected and the hearing of the suit was adjourned to 2.00 p.m. that day. At 2.00 p.m. as no Counsel appeared for the Plaintiff the suit was dismissed for default.3. To prove his stand that his Counsel was ill, the Plaintiff got two witnesses examined and exhibited three documents. The Defendants resisted the prayer of the Plaintiff for restoration of the suit on the ground that the plea of illness of the Counsel was blatantly false. They...
State of Orissa, Through Executive Engineer, R and B. Division Vs. Ban ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR519(Orissa); 103(2007)CLT385
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 39-VI of the Arbitration Act, 1948 (Sic.) by the State of Orissa being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18-3-1993 passed by the then Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar dismissing Misc. Case No. 261 of 1991 filed by the State and making an award passed by the Arbitration Tribunal a Rule of the Court.2. The Respondent, a contractor, had entered into an agreement with the Appellant-State for construction of a Dispensary building for the ESI together with staff quarters at Choudwar under an agreement bearing No. 26/F-2 of 1977-78. It was agreed upon among the parties that the said construction work would be completed within twelve months. During continuance of the construction work certain disputes with regard to payments having arisen, in consonance with the terms of the agreement, the said disputes were referred to the Arbitration Tribunal under Section 41A of the Act (Orissa Amendment) for adjudication. The Arbitration T...
Secretary to Govt. of Orissa Urban Development Department and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT300
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The State of Orissa and its Officers who were defendants in Money Suit No. 204 of 1989 of the Court of the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Cuttack have filed this Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Order of dated 4-5-2000 passed by the said Court dismissing a petition filed by them under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanying a petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC and consequently dismissing the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC.2. The Respondent as Plaintiff had filed the aforesaid Money Suit for realization of damages from the defendant Appellants at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per day with effect from 1-4-1988 for their unauthorized occupation of his building in spite of termination of their tenancy from the said date. The defendant-Appellants appeared in the suit and filed their written-statement. During pendency of the suit the Plaintiff-Respondent filed a petition with a prayer to amend the plaint, which having been allowed the Court below permitted t...
Nagarjuna Patnaik Vs. Jaykay Construction, I/C. Susil Kumar Dogga and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT423
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Appellant seeks to assail the order dated 3-4-1992 passed by the 1st MACT, Sambalpur in Misc. Case No. 35 of 1991 arising out of MAC Case No. 80 of 1987. By the impugned order the Learned Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the Appellant to restore the aforesaid MAC Case which was dismissed for default on 21-3-1990. As it appears from the narration of facts in the impugned order, the aforesaid MAC Case was filed by the Appellant and the Tribunal directed to issue notice to the two Opposite Parties. Requisites for issue of notice were duly filed by the Appellant and notice was issued to Respondent No. 1. The order passed on 21-11-1989 reads as follows:Advocate for the petitioner files a petition for time to take step against OP-2. S.R. of OP-1 not back. Call on 5-4-90 for taking steps against OP-2 and awaiting S.R. of OP-1. Issue reminder for S.R. of OP-1.Thereafter the case was adjourned to several dates. The case was posted to 21-3-1990 for filing of deficit requi...
Kalinga Mining Corporation and anr. Vs. Arbind Construction Company Pv ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR37(Orissa); 103(2007)CLT432; 2007(I)OLR256
A.K. Parichha, J.1. In this appeal the order of status quo passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short called as 'the Act') by the Learned District Judge, Cuttack in Arbitration proceeding No. 28 of 2006 is under challenge.2. The Appellant is a partnership firm carrying on business of mining operation. It obtained three mining lease from the Government of Orissa for mining of specific ore and executed mining lease agreements dated 22.6.1973, 22.6.1973 and 11.12.1990. As the Appellant found difficulties to execute the mining activities, it entered Into an agency agreement dated 14.3.1991 with Respondent No. 1 and executed irrevocable power of attorney dated 25.3.1991 giving Respondent No. 1 the authority to execute the mining work for and on their behalf. Respondent No. 1 thereafter used its own resource, personnel and continued the agency activity. The agency agreement was last extended for a period of 3 years with effect from 1.4.2003 stipulating vi...
Sri Hrushikesha Sen Vs. Governor Reserve Bank of India and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT426
B.P. Das, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the order dated 23.9.1992 passed by Opposite Party No. 2 imposing certain penalties which, according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, are shockingly disproportionate to the charges and that too the multiple punishments are contrary to the service Rules. The charges framed against Petitioner, as it appears from Anexure 2, are as follows:3. You are therefore, charged with-a) having colluded with others in the substitution of 7992 punched notes in the 114 packets of non-issuable notes, with the intention of causing pecuniary loss to the Bank.Or in the alternativeaa) having performed your duties as Asst. Treasurer grossly negligently, in failing to notice the substitution of 7992 punched notes of Rs. 100/- denomination in the said 114 packets, inter alia, by not following the instructions contained in paras 39 and 53 of the Chapter-Ill of the issue department manual (1972 edition).b) having caused pecuni...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›