Orissa Court May 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.
Bhaskar Das Vs. O.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT468
I. Mahanty, J.1. The Petitioner, Bhaskar Das, has filed the present writ application seeking a direction to the Opp. Parties for release/payment of his retirement dues as well as the other legitimate dues and prays to quash the orders of punishment passed against the Petitioner after his retirement vide Annexures-2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 to the writ application.2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the Orissa Road Transport Company (for short, 'the ORT Company') in the year 1964. His services were regularized as Conductor in the ORT Company on 20.10.1989. In the year 1992, the ORT Company merged with Orissa Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') and the Petitioner continued to serve under the Corporation. In course of such service, the Petitioner was transferred on 19.11.1997 from DTM, Cuttack Zone to join at DTM, Puri Zone on 28.11.1997. The Petitioner submitted his joining report before the DTM, Puri, on 26.1.1997, but the same was not accepted on the plea that...
Arun Dua, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT475; [2007(115)FLR717]; (2008)ILLJ148Ori
I. Mahanty, J.1. All the above three writ applications have been taken together as they involve common question of law and since the Petitioners' firms have been clubbed together by the E.P.F. authorities in passing the impugned order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act').2. In all the three writ applications, the Petitioners seek to challenge the order passed by the E.P.F. authorities under Section 7A of the Act of vide Annexure-5.3. The essential claim of the Petitioner is based on facts. The question that has been raised is whether the Petitioners' firms have been correctly determined to be covered under the operation of the Act or not.4. In this respect, in the counter affidavit filed by the Opp. Parties, various facts have been stated in order to justify their action of clubbing together the employees of two firms on the basis of the report of the squads and document submitted with it. The 7A authority foun...
Sushree Builders Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Recovery Officer, Debts Recove ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ori115; 104(2007)CLT197
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proclamation of sale of properties in an auction notice dated 17.1.2007 issued by the Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack in R.P. No. 125/2003/CTC.2. The material facts of the case are that Petitioner No. 1 Mr. Sushree Builders Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company and Petitioner No. 2 Ashok Kumar Misra is the Managing Director of the said company. Petitioner No. 2 applied for a loan from State Bank of India, Berhampur Industrial Area Branch (hereinafter called the 'said Bank') for carrying on his business of manufacturing of bricks by semi-mechanised process. The loan was sanctioned totaling about Rs. 32.96 lakhs, out of which Rs. 27.96 lakhs was sanctioned as Medium Term Loan and Rs. 5 lakhs was sanctioned as cash credit. The loan was applied for on 27.5.1996 and it was sanctioned on 5.9.1996. Thereafter the Petitioners as well as the guarantors executed mortgage deed by creating equitable mortga...
Kalandi Mallick and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT441; 2007(II)OLR150
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The two appellants seek to assail the judgment dated 8th November, 1989 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No. 248 of 1988/ 38 of 1989 convicting them of the charge under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 ,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further two months.2. The short facts of the case that on 29.4.1988, P.W. 6 Kalpana, the daughter of P.W. 1 Nisakar was kidnapped. P.W. 1 filed an FIR at the Jajpur Police Station in that regard alleging that the two accused-appellants (Kalandi and Gangadhar) had taken Kalpana in a trekker on the pretext of going to Biraja Temple and in fact they directed the vehicle to proceed to Panikoili Chhak. At Panikoili Chhak Gangadhar, accused-appellant No. 2, asked Kalandi, accused-appellant No. 1, to take Kalpana to Paradeep. Accordingly Kalandi took Kalpana to Paradeep. At Paradeep she was...
Dasarathi Sahukar Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3445
I. Mahanty, J.1. The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the order of conviction passed on 26-7-1993 by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 148 of 1992 who found the accused guilty under Section 376, IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') and having convicted appellant thereunder, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life in view of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 11-3-1992 at about 7.00 p.m. the victim had been to attend the call of nature and while she was returning home by road the accused appellant came behind her and forcibly lifted her to his thrashing floor and committed rape on her. At the time of commission of rape she shouted and hearing her hue and...
Dr. Tapan Kumar Mohanty Vs. Chairman, Paradeep Port Trust, Paradeep an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT302; 2007(II)OLR66
M.M. Das, J.1. The petitioner is a medico and while serving as a specialist in Occupational Health under the Paradeep Port Trust he retired from the said post on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.4.2006 A.N. On the date of his retirement, the petitioner states to be drawing a salary at the scale of pay of Rs. 17,550/- + Rs. 4388/- N.P.A. After retirement, the petitioner was sanctioned provisional pension and retiral benefits in the scale of pay of a Medical Officer-cum-Assistant Surgeon, i.e., Rs. 14,350/- + Rs. 3588/- N.P.A. which was a lower scale than the scale of pay at which the petitioner was receiving his salary on the date of his retirement.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was promoted to the post of specialist (Occupational Health) in the then scale of pay of Rs. 3, 350-120-5150/- as per the order of promotion dated 4.12.1992 annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. From the date of the said promotion, the petitioner worked as a specialist. The...
Bira @ Birabara Naik and anr. Vs. Smt. Shantilata Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR87
A.K. Parichha, J.1. The order of remand passed by learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Champua in R.F.A. No. 2/29 of 2004-03 is under challenge in this appeal.2. The present respondent as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 9 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Champua for declaration or her right title over the suit land and confirmation of possession or alternatively for recovery of possession of that land and also for issue of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the house constructed over the suit land. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that she purchased Ac.0.08 decimals of land from Plot No. 159 and Ac.0.01 decimal from Plot No. 160 of Khata No. 12/12/202 of village Champua from one Basanti Kumari Patnaik under registered sale deed No. 160/92 for consideration of Rs. 24,000/- on 17.2.1992 and came into the possession of that land, but when she tried to raise a compound wall and a house thereon the defendant -appellan...
Tikeram Luha Vs. the District and Sessions Judge and Four ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR254
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.2. The order passed by the Registrar, Civil Courts, Balangir dated 5.4.2007 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for supply of Oriya copy of the judgment in C.S. No. 10 of 2006 is under challenge.3. From the order in Annexure-2 it appears that the Registrar, Civil Courts, Balangir rejected the petition solely on the ground that there is no such provision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Section 137(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and submits that under the said provision, Oriya copy of the judgment could be delivered to the petitioner.4. I, therefore, set aside the order dated 5.4.2007 passed by the Registrar, Civil Courts, Balangir and direct him to reconsider the application of the petitioner in terms of Section 137(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.The writ application is acc...
Raju Sahu Alias Bangra Raju Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR22
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This petition has been filed challenging the order of detention dated 3rd November, 2006 on the basis of the grounds of detention dated 5th November, 2006. It appears that the detention of the petitioner was also confirmed by the Advisory Board by its order dated 27th December, 2006. Under the said order, the petitioner appears to have been detained with effect from 3rd November, 2006. There are several grounds in support of the said order of detention.2. The order has been challenged by the petitioner solely on one ground that in the order of detention the detaining authority has not disclosed any satisfaction regarding formation of his opinion that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In other words, it has been stated that if the detaining authority was not satisfied that there was an immediate chance of the petitioner coming out of jail, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority could not have been complete. In support of this contenti...
Secretary, Managing Committee, Shri Aurobindo Institute of Integral Ed ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ori139; 104(2007)CLT388; 2007(II)OLR62
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This letters patent appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 4.9.2000 passed by a learned Judge of the writ Court. While delivering the said judgment, the learned Judge of the writ Court was pleased to upheld the order passed by the State Education Tribunal whereby the appeals filed by the present respondents 6 to 9 against the order of termination of their services, were allowed setting aside the order of termination. Against the said order of the Tribunal, a writ petition was filed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of Shri Aurobindo Institute of Integral Education and Research (hereinafter referred to as 'the said institution') and the respondents 6 to 9 were the private Opp. Parties to the said writ application. Before the writ Court the said institution claimed the status of a minority institution. Before us the said point of minority status was not pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant in view of the decision of the Supreme Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »