Orissa Court November 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.
Managobinda Sahoo and Two ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(I)OLR96
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. This application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Narasinghpur in 2 I.C.C. No. 86 of 2004 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 302, 201, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Sarpanch of Nidhiguda Gram Panchayat and petitioner No. 2 is the son of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 3 is the brother of petitioner No. 1. On 21.6.2003 opposite party No. 2 lodged a written F.I.R. before the Officer-in-charge of Narasinghpur Police Station alleging therein that on 26.3.2003 at about 8 P.M. petitioner No. 2 called the deceased Pabitra Kumar Sahoo (husband of the informant) on the plea that his father, petitioner No. 1, was calling him for some work. The deceased accompanied with petitioner No. 2 but never returned till late in the night and on the next day his dead body was found floating in a well near Balanath temple. It is the case of the informant that the dec...
State of Orissa Vs. Kulamani Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(I)OLR205
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.9.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1989 setting aside the judgment and order dated 2.5.1989 passed by the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial No. 35/16 of 1987/88 wherein he convicted the accused (respondent) for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for six months more.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that accused is a distant relative of the alleged victim (P.W.1) and as such he had visiting term with the family members of the victim. It is alleged that some time in the month of Jyestha of the year 1986, while the victim, a girl of less than 16 years was alone in her study room, accused came there and without her consent and against her will squeezed her breasts and forcibly lifted her to a room and comm...
State of Orissa Vs. Karunakar Sahu (Dead) After Him Lokanath Sahu and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(I)OLR294
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materials available on record.2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Bengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60...
Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. Chief Commissioner and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT567
ORDER1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Writ Petition has been filed by M/s. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. (in short 'PPL') with a prayer for payment of interest pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2774 of 2001.3. The material facts of the case are as follows: An appeal was filed by the Petitioner before the Collector (Appeal), Kolkata against the Order Dated 2.12.1992 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Paradeep. By the said order, the Asst. Commissioner of Customs finalized the provisional assessment by confirming the duty demand of Rs. 10.27 Crores under Heading No. 8428.39. The said appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected by Collector (Appeals) and against the same, the Petitioner filed appeal along with an application under Section 129E of the Customs Act for dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit of duty before the Customs, Excise & (Gold) Control Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, for short referred to as 'CEGAT'). T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›