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.
Prasanta Kumar Nayak Vs. Mrs. Harapriya Barik @ Tarai and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR335
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by one Prasanta Kumar Nayak, who describes himself as a Member of the Indian Administrative Service (Orissa Cadre) with a prayer for initiating a suo motu proceeding for criminal contempt against opposite party No. 1-Mrs. Harapriya Barik @ Tarai.2. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is invoking the Court's jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but the consent of the Advocate General, which is required to be taken before invoking this jurisdiction, has not been obtained. The learned Counsel submitted that he is seeking to initiate a suo motu proceeding of criminal contempt against opposite party No. 1 for the statements allegedly made by her.3. In support of the petitioner's case for initiating a suo motu proceeding for criminal contempt against opposite party No. 1, learned Counsel placed reliance on certain materials.4. The Court's attention was first ...
Suresh Barik Vs. Purna Chandra Rout and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT639
B.P. Das, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Judgment dated 30.8.2005 passed by the District Judge-Cum-Election Tribunal, Sundargarh in Election Petition No. 5 of 2003 upholding the election of O.P. No. 1 -Purna Chandra Rout to the office of the Councillor of Ward No. 9 of Rajgangpur Municipality and dismissing the election petition filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner challenged the election on the ground that the same was invalid, improper and unlawful as O.P. No. 1 was disqualified under Clauses (xvi) and (xvii) of Section 16(1) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (for short, the 'Act') for having more than one spouse living and for having more than two children at the time of filing the nomination paper for the election.2. Briefly stated, the case of the Petitioner is that election of Councillors of different wards of Rajgangpur Municipality was notified to be held on 19.9.2003, the last date for filing nomination papers being 30.8.2003 and the date of scrutiny of the...
Sankar Gouda Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR606
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed in the nature of Habeas Corpus challenging the order of detention dated 22.12.2006 on the basis of the grounds of detention dated 24.12.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam directing detention of the petitioner-Sankar Gouda under the Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security, Act, 1980.2. The sole ground on which the petitioner has challenged the grounds of detention is that the petitioner made a representation, which is dated 5.1.2007 and there has been inordinate delay by the State Government in disposing of the petitioner's representation and there is no cogent explanation for this delay. In the counter filed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Ganjam-Berhampur-O.P. No. 3-the detaining authority, this fact of the petitioner making the representation on 5.1.2007 is accepted vide paragraph-8 thereof. The said representation was allegedly considered and by the order rejecting the representation was serve...
Keshab Patra Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT790; 2007CriLJ4117; 2007(II)OLR359
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department.2. It appears that no formal FIR has been lodged in the present case. But the Vigilance Department on obtaining the order from the appropriate authority, has caused raid over the house of the petitioner in order to assess as to whether he has acquired assets which is disproportionate to his known source of income.3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that this is a primary stage of the case where enquiry is being conducted and only after it is found that the petitioner has acquired assets which is disproportionate to his known source of income, then an FIR will be lodged and regular investigation will be commenced.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying upon decision in the case of Biswamitra Majhi and Anr. v. State of Orissa (2005) 30 OCR 560 of a learned Single Judge of this Court, submits that in the said case, p...
Smt. Basanta Kumari Mohapatra Vs. Kuni Devi and Six ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR285
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. In spite of service of notice to the opposite parties, they have not entered appearance.3. This writ application is directed against the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nayagarh in C.S. No. 42 of 2002 rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint.4. The petitioner has filed the suit for declaration that the registered gift deed dated 7.12.1998 and the registered sale deed dated 7.12.1998 purported to have been executed by late Loknath Mohapatra in favour of opposite party Nos. 1 and 5 are void and also for declaration that, the subsequent registered sale deed dated 22.1.2001 executed by opposite party No. 5 In favour of opposite party No. 1 and the registered sale deed dated 3.4.2002 executed by opposite party No. 1 in favour of opposite parties 2 to 4 are void and also for permanent injunction.5. In the said suit, an application under Order VI, Rule XVII of C.P.C. was...
Managobinda Kishan Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR363
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.2. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.3. Considered the materials available on record. An FIR was lodged by one Nirupama Kissan on 9.4.2007, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner on the assurance of marriage, kept physical relationship with her on account of which, she conceived. But subsequently the petitioner went back from his promise. The FIR has been registered for commission of an offence under Sections 493/506 IPC.4. Mr. R.K. Nayak, learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the document under Annexure-2 and submits that this dispute was referred to the village Ranch and the said village Panch decided that there is absolutely no fault on the part of the petitioner as would be evident from Annexure-2. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged the complaint being ICC No. 11 of 2007 in the Court of ...
The Managing Committee of Ambika Girls' High School represented by It' ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Ori15; 104(2007)CLT775
ORDER1. Heard.Annexures 10 and 11, the two orders leading to same consequence with respect to Ambika Girls High School at Kans under Nilgiri Police Station is under challenge. It reveals from Annexures 10 and 11 that the State Government took a policy decision to merge educational institutions having inadequate student strength with nodal educational institutions of the like nature, i.e. High Schools and Colleges respectively. Consequent upon that decision as per order Annexure-11, schools as per list were directed to be merged with different education circle, and in paragraph-19 Ambika Girls High School, Kans was directed for merger with Ambika Girls High School, Durgapur. Both being aided educational institutions, Ambika Girls High School, Durgapur was recorded as adjacent Nodal School.2. Sri Sanjay Kumar Barik, a member of the then Managing Committee of the Ambika Girls High School, Kans filed this writ application mentioning it to be on behalf of the Managing Committee. In the coun...
Sunil Kumar Khetan Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ536
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. This is the third time that the petitioner is before this Court in connection with G.R. Case No. 1344 of 2005 relating to Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 413 of 2005 which is now pending before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. No. 24 of 2006.2. The co-accused-Bimal married to the daughter, namely, Manisha (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') of one Gajanand Agrawal, the informant. The marriage took place on 9-5-2005. Within five months of the marriage, the deceased was found dead in her bed-room in the matrimonial home on 1-10-2005. An information was lodged by said Gajanand Agrawal in the Jharsuguda Police Station alleging, inter alia, that the deceased was being tortured on account of demand of dowry, by her husband and other in-laws. The FIR, was registered under Sections 498A/302/304B/ 406/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.3. The petitioner is the brother of the husband of the deceased. The husband of the deceased Bimal Kum...
Basantilata Dash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR297
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. In the instant matter, the question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the application for setting aside the order of dismissal of any representation/OA for default is maintainable after the prescribed period of limitation alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing the same.2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, vide impugned order dated 8.11.2005 passed in two M.As. including the OA of the instant petitioner (O.A. No. 262 of 2001), dismissed the application of the petitioner for restoration which was filed after the prescribed period of limitation alongwith an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to entertain the same as it was filed beyond the time stipulated. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the case of Rajayya Bosi v. Union of India and Ors. : 96(2003)CLT230 . There this Court relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Director, Gov...
Patitapaban Prusty and ors. Vs. Madhab Charan Khuntia and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR323
Sanju Panda, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 25.10.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in Civil Suit No. 79/288 of 2006-2004 wherein the petition filed by the defendants under Section 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') has been rejected.2. The question that is to be determined in this case is whether the suit, as laid, abates under the aforementioned provisions of the Act.3. The facts of the case are as follows;The opposite parties being the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner-defendants not to raise construction over the suit plot and not to change the nature and character of the suit properties. In case it is found that the plaintiffs are being dispossessed from the suit property during pendency of the suit, the possession may restore through Court. Plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »