Orissa Court October 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.
Uflex Limited Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT32; 2007(2)CTLJ463(Ori)
B.P. Das, J.1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the decision of the Govt. of Orissa in Excise Department rejecting its tender submitted for 'Printing of Excise Adhesive Labels (EALs) and Supply of the same to Govt. of Orissa for affixing on the caps of IMFL and Beer bottles etc. as per specifications and terms and conditions mentioned in the Tender Document'.2. The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacturing and supply of Security Holograms (Excise Adhesive Labels - 'EALs' in short) of various specifications with several security features and has a comprehensive in-house manufacturing facility to manufacture holograms with state-of-art technology. According to the Petitioner, it has the necessary infrastructure with requisite machineries and equipments to manufacture such security holograms and has the capability to supply Polyester Based Security Holograms (EALs) as per the specification and requirement of differen...
Meghanad Bhainsal and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT55
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In this revision, the Petitioners challenge the Order Dated 07.11.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Sundargarh taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 302/201/34 IPC against them in I.C.C. Case No. 17 of 2005 instituted by Opposite Party No. 2.2. Brief facts of the case is that Opposite Party No. 2 initially lodged an FIR before the OIC, Hemagiri PS. against Petitioner No. 1 and another co-accused, namely, Abhimanyu Patta, with the allegation of murder of his son. Accordingly, Hemagiri P.S. Case No. 36 of 2005 was registered and after investigation final form was submitted against two accused persons, namely, Arjun Bhoi and Ajaya Kumar Mod Bahali. Thereafter, Opposite Party No. 2 filed the above noted complaint case before the S.D.J.M., Sundargarh against the Petitioners and another co-accused Abhimanyu Patta. After registration of the complaint case, the complainant examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and some of the witnesses mentioned in the complaint ...
Dr. Sunil Kumar Padhy Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(I)OLR188
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 09.03.2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 71 of 2006 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh framing charge against the petitioner under Section 304 Part 1 IPC.2. Fact of the case, in brief, is that on 03.12.2003 one Ajaya Kumar Ray lodged an FIR before the I.I.C., Titilagarh Police Station that his son, Sachin Kumar Ray, for fracture on his hand, was under the treatment of the petitioner, who was then serving as Asst. Surgeon, S.D. Hospital, Titilagarh. On the advice and prescription of the petitioner, two injections were given to his son on 01.12.2003. As the condition of his son became serious, the informant took him to Dr. Padhi, who advised him to give ice message. But seeing the condition of his son further deteriorating, informant brought him to the hospital at 5 P.M. on 02.12.2003 and admitted him as an indoor patient. Dr. B.B. Naik examined his son and advised him to shift the patient to D.H.H., Bolangi...
State of Orissa Vs. Naresh Chandra Barik and Four ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR756
R.N. Biswal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.4.1992 passed by the Asst.Sessions Judge, Anandapur in S.T. case No. 19/103 of 1991 acquitting the accused persons of the charge under Sections 366/376/368 of I.P.C.2. The case as unfolded by prosecution is that on 10.10.90 at about midnight accused Naresh Chandra Barik along with accused Satrughan Ojha kidnapped the victim, a girl aged about 14 years from her house to compel her to marry with accused Naresh Chandra Barik. They kept her confined in different places including the house of other 3 co-accused and committed rape on her in village Kachara Sahi. The parents and other family members searched for the alleged victim girl and came to know that she had been kidnapped by the above named two accused persons to compel her to marry accused Naresh Chandra Barik, but the father of the victim could not report this incident at the police station immediately, because of death of his father and for his own il...
Sri Brajaraj Das Alias Dr. Braja Bhai Vs. Pyarimohan Mohapatra and ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT98
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. Challenge in this revision is to the Order Dated 17.05.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No. 2855 of 2005 partly allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by confining the further cross-examination to certain questionnaire, thereby disallowing the rest of the questionnaire.2. Brief facts of the case are that Opposite Party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Opposite Party') filed a complaint case against the Petitioner and the proforma Opposite Parties in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, which was registered as I.C.C. Case No. 2855 of 2005. In the said case, the complainant examined himself and three others as witnesses. The Petitioner filed a petition on 05.03.2007 to recall the complainant for further cross-examination, which was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 2000 /-.On 24.07.2007, the Petitioner paid the cost to the complainant and filed a further petition to allow him to put some additional questions to the complainant. But...
Shantilata Bhutia Vs. Subhadra Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(I)OLR179
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In the instant revision, the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.05.1998 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Revision No. 28/30 of 1997/94 reversing the order dated 25.03.1994 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Crl. Misc. Case No. 217 of 1993.2. The petitioner is the 1st party in the trial Court and opposite party No. 2 before the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar (lower revisional Court). The case of the petitioner is that her residential house is situated over plot No. 1120 corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 87 and the private opposite parties are the owners of Hal Plot Nos. 1122 and 1123 corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 88. To the South of the above plots, a public passage runs bearing Plot No. 1126, which is used by the family of the petitioner and others. The private opposite parties have occupied a major portion of the said passage by constructing a shed, thereby obstructing free passage/T...
Debasis Jena and anr. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Ori49
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 15-2-2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in RFA No. 138 of 2004 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable and consequently holding that the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inconsequential2. Opposite parties 1 to 4 filed Civil Suit No. 745 of 2004 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore for declaration of right, title, interest over the suit schedule land and for permanent injunction. The petitioners and opposite parties 5 and 6 were defendants in the suit. The case of the plaintiff opposite parties 1 to 4 is that the suit schedule land originally belonged to the defendants but the plaintiffs took over possession in the year 1990 and have been possessing the same by exercising their right of ownership openly, peacefully and continuously to the knowledge of the real owner. The case of the plaintiffs is that when the defendants attempted ...
Jugal Kishore Behera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT198
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the Order Dated 18.09.2006 passed by the J.M.F.C, Berharnpur, Ganjam in G.R. Case No. 932 of 2001 rejecting the application of the Petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and framing charge against him under Sections 379/411/34 IPC.2. The case of the Petitioner is that on the basis of the FIR lodged by the S.I. of Police, Baidyanathpur P.S., he has been implicated in Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No. 221 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 932 of 2001 under Sections 379/411/34 IPC. On receipt of the final form, the S.D.J.M., Berharnpur took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and transferred the case to the Court of J.M.F.C, Berharnpur for trial. Before the J.M.F.C, Berharnpur, the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to discharge him. Learned J.M.F.C. after hearing the Counsel for the Petitioner and his counterpart as well as considering the materials available on record was not inclined to dischar...
Adimul HossaIn Khan and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ655
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In this revision, the petitioners challenge the order dated 6-1-2007 passed by the SDJM, Bhadrak taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 436/34, IPC against them in ICC Case No. 104 of 2006 instituted by opposite party No. 2.2. The allegation of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 is that while he was constructing the boundary wall between his house and that of the petitioners, the petitioners being armed with deadly weapons came and assaulted him. They also assaulted his family members and the labourers engaged for the purpose. Thereafter, the petitioners tried to set fire to the thatched roof of the complainant by pouring kerosene, but the same was extinguished with the help of the fire brigade. It is alleged that on account of such setting of fire, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 5000/-. The learned SDJM as it appears from the impugned order, perused the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant, statements of the witnesses recorde...
Dr. Sashi Bhushan Acharya and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT169
I. Mahanty, J.1. The aforesaid Public Interest Litigations have been filed by the Petitioners originally seeking to challenge the proposed Scheme for re-organisation of the Revenue Department vis-a-vis re-organisation of Settlement and Consolidation with Tahasil Administration vide Annexures 2 and 3 to WPC No. 7763 of 2003 and thereafter, further seeking to challenge Resolution No. DRC- 33/2003-57938/R dated 6.12.2003 of the Government under Annexure-1 to W.P.(C) No. 13959 of 2003.2. The Petitioners in both the writ applications, inter alia, seek to challenge the proposal/resolution of the Government of Orissa dated 6.12.2003 deciding to:(1) Integrate the Settlement and Consolidation work into mainstream of Tahasil Administration.(2) Rationalize Revenue Administration at the Directorate, District, Sub-Divisional and Tahasil level.(3) Reorganize the training institutes.3. Mr. M.S. Panda, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 7763 of 2003, inter alia, submitted that the Peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »