Orissa Court July 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.
Chandra Chudamani Patnaik and Two ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT786; I(2008)DMC457; 2007(II)OLR356
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.10.1996 passed by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1995 (S.C.No. 275 of 1995 GDC) whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 498A IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years under Section 498A IPC and one year under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; the sentences to run concurrently. Initially, the appeal was preferred by three appellants. During its pendency, appellant No. 2-Saraswati Patnaik having died, the appeal as against the said appellant has abated by order dated 16.5.2007. Now, the appeal is confined to appellants 1 and 3.2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between Manoranjan Patnaik (appellant No. 3) and the deceased (Mamatamayee Patnaik) was solemnized on 05.8.1994. Appellant No. 1-Chandra Chudamani Patnaik and appellant No. 2-Sara...
Manoj Kumar Basantray Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR313
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.01.1987 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack convicting the appellant and the co-accused under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years in G.R. Case No. 730 of 1998/22-T/98.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.07.1998 P.W.5. Upendra Nath Sahoo, Inspector, C.I.D., C.B., received reliable information from his source that the appellant and the co-accused were dealing in clandestine business of brown sugar at the homestead land of accused Sweta Kumar Swain. He reduced the information to writing and submitted the same to the S.P., C.I.D., C.B. On the orders of the S.P., P.W.5 along with S.I., Satyabadi Padhi (P.W.5) and other staff of C.B. went to Sadar P.S. and placed a requisition for assistance and proceeded to t...
Smt. Kanchana Badaseth Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Four ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR365
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 10.5.1999 by which the Review Application No. 13 of 1994 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The said Review Application was dismissed by the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground of delay. The Tribunal found that the Review Application was filed on 22.2.1994 for reviewing an order dated 13.8.1993. The time for filing the Review Application as specified under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules is 30 days.2. However, another question has arisen in this case, namely, whether a Review Application is maintainable once the order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing an SLP and the same SLP was dismissed.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such Review Application is maintainable in view of Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kunhayammed and Ors. v....
Bhua @ Bijay Murmu and Thumpu @ Rohia Murmu and anr. Vs. State of Oris ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT726
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. Both the aforesaid appeals are directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14:12.2000 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Udala in S.T. Case No. 8/65 of 2000. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.10.1999 evening the informant Ramesh Murmu (P.W.4) finding his minor daughter absent in his house searched for her and being unsuccessful lodged an information before O.I.C., Kaptipada P.S. on 13.10.1999. On receipt of such information, the O.I.C registered a case and rescued the victim along with accused Bijay from the house of one Bhagaban % Majhi of Srikanthapur under Balasore town police station, seized their wearing apparels, sent them for medical examination, arrested the accused Bijay and forwarded him in Court. After closure investigation, the O.I.C. submitted final form against the accused-Appellants under Sections 376/366/114 IPC.'3. The plea...
Sanjay Kumar Panda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT706; 2008CriLJ2722
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This revision is directed against the Order Dated 05.08.2005 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 59 of 2002 framing charge against the Petitioner under Sections -13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act read with Sections 419/420/468/471/409/114/120B IPC. By the said order, the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance) has also framed charge against the co-accused under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 409 IPC.2. The allegation of the prosecution is that the present Petitioner while functioning as Addl. Manager, Finance in Orissa State Police Housing and Welfare Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar appointed one Siba Charana Parida as his follower orderly (F.O.) on 24.06.1998. Since then, he was taking the salary of the said F.O. every month for payment to the said orderly and was submitting the voucher the next day after showing disbursement of the amount to the' said P.O. The Petitioner himself was attesting the paymen...
K.P. Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Ori17
B.P. Das, J.1. The writ petitioner, a retired Judge of this High Court, was appointed as the Lokpal under Section 3 of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 (Orissa Act 8 of 1995) and he assumed the said office on 16-2-1997. He has been constrained to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner in this writ petition prays to quash the letter dated 12-2-2001 issued by the State Government in Public Grievance and Pension Administration Department, vide Annexure-5, wherein it was clarified that the relief extended to Justice S.K. Ray, ex Lokpal, pursuant to the decision or this Court in O. J. C. No. 10896 of 1998 (reported in 90 (2000) CLT 362 : Justice S.K. Ray v. State of Orissa), cannot be made available to the petitioner since his case is not similarly situated with that of Justice S.K. Ray, ex Lokpal. The claim of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the enhanced salary and allowances as admissible to the Chief Justice of the High Court.2. The Lokpa...
Justice Debendra Mohan Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Ori28
B.P. Das, J.1. The writ petitioner while functioning as sitting Judge of this High Court, was appointed as the President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa ('State Commission', hereinafter) and assumed charges on 21-4-1999. He remained in dual charges till 31-8-1999, when he retired as a Judge of this High Court. Thereafter, he continued as the President of the State Commission till 21-4-2004.2. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') provides that the salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service (including tenure of office) of the members of the State Commission shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. Rule 6 of the Orissa Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed under the Act provides:6. Salary or honorarium and other allowances and terms and conditions of the President and members of the State Commission - (Section 16(2)) - (1) Presi...
Sri Allana Jagannath Vs. Sashanam Lachana and Three ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT621; 2007(II)OLR406
N. Prusty, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the owner of the vehicle/opposite party No. 1 before the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, challenging the order-dated 31.05.1994 passed in MJC No. 2 of 1994.2. Heard Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L Pradhan, learned Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. M. Sinha, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3.3. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an ex parte award dated 28.08.1993 was passed against the petitioner by the learned second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (S.D.), Berhampur in MAC No. 344/92 (51/92). Since the owner of the vehicle/opposite party No. 1/petitioner did not appear in the case before the Tribunal on the date fixed nor filed his written statement, he was set ex parte and as such an award was passed against the Insurance Company/ opposite party No. 2 on consent and ex parte against the owner of the vehicle/opposite party No. 1 directing the petitioner/owner...
Babuli @ Rajkishore Rana Vs. Prasanti @ Purnamasi Rana and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(104)CTC372; II(2007)DMC664; 2007(II)OLR332
R.N. Biswal, J.1. Heard argument from the learned Counsel for both the parties and the judgment is delivered as follows:2. Petitioner challenges the order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2002 wherein he dismissed the revision and only modified the order dated 17.5.2002 passed by the learned JM.F.C. Ranpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4 of 2000. As per the case of the opp. parties, petitioner married opp. party No. 1 on 1.3.1990 in village Sinduria in accordance with the Hindu rites and their Caste custom. At the time of marriage, on demand of the petitioner, the father of opp. party No. 1 gave Rs. 5000/- in cash and one gold ring towards dowry. After the marriage the couple led a happy conjugal life for about two years and were blessed with opp. party No. 2 whereafter skirmishes erupted between the couple, since father of opp. party No. 1 could not fulfil further demand of Rs. 10.000/- towards dowry made by the pet...
Indian Latex Fibre Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR669; (2009)20VST57(Orissa)
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has very fairly produced the records. But, no affidavit has been filed in this case.2. In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 1.3.1985 under Annexure-1 issued to the petitioner for initiating a suo moturevision. The said notice is issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri Range, Puri. By the said notice, the petitioner has been informed that the assessment for the year 1978-79 has already been completed thereby escaping some income on which the petitioner is liable to pay tax.3. The petitioner is a company carrying on business in manufacturing of coconut fibre cushions, mattresses etc. Pursuant to the said notice, a suo motu revision under Section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (in short, the 'Rules') was instituted and an order was passed therein on 6.3.1985. From the original records ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »