Orissa Court April 2007 Judgments
Sarat Chandra Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)OLR770
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The order dated 10.7.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kendrapara in L.A. Suit No. 6 of 1999 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party to the suit under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. is under challenge.3. As it appears from the impugned order, a reference was made to the learned Civil Judge by the Land Acquisition Officer, Civil, Cuttack under Section 18 of the L.A. Act in which Sridhar Mohapatra was described as the land owner. The petitioner is the son of the said Sridhar Mohapatra. When notice was issued to the said Sridhar Mohapatra by the Court, it was received by the petitioner since the said Sridhar Mohapatra was dead by then. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party to the suit on the ground that he is the successor being son of the deceased Sridhar Mohapatra. Along with the said applicati...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Tuduja Digal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT366
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This Government Appeal has been filed against the Judgment/ Order dated 20th March, 1993 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No. 57 of 1992 acquitting the Respondent of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 21.1.1992 at about 4 PM Chhanaki Digal had gone to Dharanipada jungle near village Dimiriguda to collect twigs and Siali leaves. While she was engaged in collecting twigs and siali leaves, the Appellant arrived there, forcibly laid Chhanki down on the ground and committed rape on her. The Appellant threatened the victim to take away her life and the life of her husband if she would disclose the incident to anybody. Out of fear, the victim did not disclose the incident to any outsider but intimated the said fact to her husband. After hearing the incident from the victim, her husband wanted to enquire the said fact from the Appellant, but his elder brother prevented him to do so out of f...
Tag this Judgment!Rashi Mallik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR231
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20th December, 1986 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.C. No. 25/1986 convicting the appellant under Section 304 (Part-II) I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for four years is assailed in this appeal.2. Bereft of unnecessary details the prosecution case in short is that in the year 1985 the informant, P.W. 1, had gone to Kothagarh Market. His father-in-law, the1 deceased, had also gone to the said market. While the informant was on his way back to his house he met the accused who was going along with Sridhar Majhi, P.W. 2, and Bhima Majhi, P.W. 3. Seeing the informant the accused asked him to return P.s.20/ - which he had borrowed from him. As the informant expressed his inability to repay the amount, the accused got annoyed and gave him two slaps and threatened to kill his father-in-law, the deceased. After proceeding ahead the accused and P.Ws.2 and 3 met the deceased near a Nala locally known as 'Khar...
Tag this Judgment!Baidyanath Mishra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT703; [2007(114)FLR1030]
N. Prusty, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 17.06.1996 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No. 2161 of 1995 and also the Order dated 09.12.1998 passed in Review Petition No. 24 of 1996 confirming the above Order dated 17.06.1996 passed in the Original Application, in rejecting the Petitioner's claim for special pay attached to the post of O.A.S. Class-I Senior Branch (Deputy Secretary) Super Time Senior Branch (Joint Secretary) along with interest @ 18 % per annum on delayed payment of arrear, arrear dues relating to commuted value of pension along with interest @ 18 % per annum and compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for harassment and allowing the prayer for payment of interest for the delayed payment of D.C.R.G., if the delay is unreasonable.2. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed by the State in this case, on a detailed discussion relating to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shobharani Tripathy Vs. Collector and 6 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT285; [2007(114)FLR693]; 2007(1)OLR787
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.2. The case of the petitioner is that she was an applicant to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker in Orti Anganwadi Centre under Nischantakoili Block and she submitted an experience certificate which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-4. From the said certificate, it appears that an N.G.O. named as Joy Bharati Sathi Samaja certified that the petitioner is a life member of the said Voluntary Organisation from 1998 and as a trained social worker of the said Organisation, she has been actively participating in Literacy Campaign, AIDs Awareness, National Environment Awareness Campaign etc. The petitioner having not been selected, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10268 of 2005 which was disposed of by order dated 19.8.2005 directing the opp. party No. 1 therein to call for the records of selection and if necessary, to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the opp. par...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Adwait Prasad Sahoo Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and T ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR578]; 2007(1)OLR741
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though he has retired from service while serving as a Conductor under Orissa State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 31st January, 1999 but he has been granted pension with effect from 20th October, 2005 instead from the date following his date of retirement. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved by the inaction of the opposite parties in not paying the pension for the period from 1st February, 1999 till 19.10.2005 has approached this Court in the present writ petition. A counter has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner stating that since the petitioner did not attain the age of 58 years on the date when he was made to retire under Section 12(7) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, he will be entitled to reduced pension to the extent of 3% for every year by which his age falls short of 58 years.3. Learned Counsel for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Majhi (Dead) After Him Smt. Bidulata Majhi and anr. Vs. Jahaj ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ori142; 2007(II)OLR47
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This cross-appeal by the defendants is against the findings on issue Nos. 9 and 10 recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh in O.S. No. 13 of 1978-1.2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the aforesaid suit to declare that Defendant No. 4-Jogendra Kumar Guru is not the legally adopted son of Balabhadra Majhi; grant a preliminary decree for partition allotting 1 /5th share in the suit schedule properties and restrain defendant no 4 and his father-guardian, Krushna Chandra Guru, from entering into the suit land.3. Plaintiffs' case in brief was that Balabhadra Majhi, who was the owner of the suit property had two wives, namely, Sita and Godi Bewa. Through Sita, Balabhadra had only one daughter, named, Balika, (defendant No. 2) and through Godi, he had three daughters, namely, Jahaja (plaintiff No. 1), Niasi (defendant No. 3) and Kausalya (plaintiff No. 2). Balabhadra died on 10.11.1975 leaving behind his widow-Godi, and the daughters, named above. Defendant No. 4 ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Kumari Haripriya Dash and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT549
ORDER1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the State of Orissa in the year 1999 challenging the Judgment and order passed by the Orissa administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 14.12.1998 in Original Application No. 1737 (C) of 1998, though by the said Judgment, which is under challenge, several Original Applications were disposed of. After this writ petition was filed, a Division Bench of this Court granted an interim Order dated 27.07.2000 to the effect at pending disposal of the writ application, operation of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shall remain stayed and if any appointment is made during the pendency of the writ application, the same shall be subject to its result. Thereafter, several applications for interventions were filed and those were allowed. Two Division Benches of this Court refused to take up this matter and the matter went out of list.2. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.3. The impugned Judgment of the Tribunal is not concerned with ...
Tag this Judgment!Harachand Nayak and ors. Vs. Ramamani Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ori138; 2007(1)OLR771
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Petitioners are plaintiffs in T.S. No. 226/1986 pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jajpur. During pendency of the suit a petition was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint. The same has been rejected mainly on the ground that in consonance with the provision of Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. after commencement of hearing of a suit, no amendment should be allowed. According to Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the conclusion arrived at by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jajpur is not in consonance with law.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners at length. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 deals with repeal and savings. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 stipulates that any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provisions are consistent with the principal Act...
Tag this Judgment!Maa Jagadamba Traders Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR80
ORDERR.N. Biswal, J.1. Even though the case was listed to date for admission, on the request and consent of learned Counsel for both parties, the case is taken up for final disposal.2. Heard.3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in I.C.C. No. 38 of 2005, wherein he allowed the petition for amendment of the name of the complainant-Company and the name of the first power of attorney holder.4. On 7.11.2006 an amendment petition was filed on behalf of the complainant-opp. party and the amendment sought for reads as follows:(A) In Column-1 of the Complaint petition the word 'Kansai' is to be substituted in place of M/s. Goodlass and in the same column in line-2, 3 & 4 the words 'Administrative Officer Sri Tapas Kumar Mukherjee, S/o. Late Sachindranath Mukherjee be deleted and in such place the following words 'Commercial Officer Madhab Chandra Nayak, S/o. Sunakar Nayak' be inserted.B) In paragraph-1 of Column-8 of the complaint p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »