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.
Abhimanyu Mohapatra Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR514
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.02.1990 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur. By the impugned order, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of rupees three thousand, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section 306, IPC. It, however, imposed no separate sentence for the offence under Section 498A, IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.06.1982 the deceased married to co-accused Bhagabat Mohapatra (since acquitted), the son of the present appellant. There was a demand of cash of Rs. 10,000/- and 7 tolas of gold at the time of marriage negotiation. But cash of Rs. 6,000/- and 5 tolas of gold along with other moveable articles like utensils, etc., were given at the time of marriage by the informant. Six months after the marriage, the appellant went to the bank with the gold orn...
Sri Shyam Sundar Dash Vs. Superintending Engineer and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT831; 2007(II)OLR481
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The order dated 1.3.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in C.S.No. 47 of 2006 rejecting an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading Managing Director, WESCO, Burla as defendant No. 4 is under challenge.3. From the impugned order, it appears that the petition was filed on 1.3.2007 and on the very same day the same has been rejected on the ground that the defendants 2 and 3 in their written statement have not taken a stand that the Managing Director of the WESCO is a necessary party. It was for the Court to find out as to whether the Managing Director, WESCO is a necessary/proper party to the suit or not. Even if the defendants have not raised any objection, the Court cannot over look it's duty to find out as to whether the Managing Director is a necessary party or not. Admittedly, the suit is for recovery of money against the Superintending Engineer, Executive Engine...
Sofa 'N' Furniture Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation and Anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT204; [2008(116)FLR1010]; (2007)IIILLJ1081Ori
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant seeks to challenge the judgment dated November 28, 1997 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-ESI Court, Cuttack dismissing ESI Misc. Case No. 8/1993.2. The scenario of facts reveals that the appellant is a proprietorship firm registered under the District Industries Centre, Cuttack as a Small Scale Industry. On July 30, 1990 the concerned Inspector of the ESI Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') inspected the establishment of appellant Sofa 'N' Furniture, verified its Wage Register for the period from June, 1989 to June, 1990 as also the Attendance Register for the period from November, 1988 to July, 1990 in presence of its proprietor Sri. Ramesh Chandra Padhi. After verification of the above registers and also other registers produced before him, the said Inspector came to know that the products manufac...
Bikrama Keshari Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT627
B.P. Das, J.1. The Petitioners, who are the elected Councillors of different wards of Banpur Notified Area Council (N.A.C.) in Khurda district, have filed this Writ Petition praying inter alia for a declaration that the election of O.P.5-Rajashree, Das @ Rajashree Nayak to the office of the Chairperson of Banpur N.A.C, whiGh was reserved for' Backward class of citizen', is illegal on the grounds namely, (i) the office of Chairman of Banpur N.A.C. having been reserved for backward class of citizen and O.P. 5 being a citizen of non-backward class, as by birth she belongs to Karan caste which was not a backward class community, cannot hold such office and (ii) O.P.5 having been elected as a Ward Councillor from a general seat, i.e., ward NQ.12, cannot hold the office of Chairperson of Banpur N.A.C. The election in question was held in the year 2003 and the same was challenged before this Court in the year 2006 and during these three years O.P. 5 was continuing in the office.2. The brief f...
Subash Chandra Samal Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR257
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.W.P.(C)No. 11756 of 2006.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.2. In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing Annexures 11 and 14 in which renewal application of the petitioner has been rejected and the appeal preferred against such order of rejection has been dismissed.3. Sole grievance of the petitioner is that under similar circumstance in the case of two others, namely, Amit Kumar Samal, Baulang and Menaka Sundari Rout, Kasapa under Dasarathpur block, their licences have been renewed, whereas so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been discriminated. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that for the deficiency in service as stated in the showcause notice earlier, the petitioner had already been punished and therefore he could not have been punished for the self-same cause by rejecting his application for renewal of licence. From the record it appears that the petitioner ...
Sri Kartik Chandra Pradhan Vs. Director General, Central Industrial Se ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR608
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties.2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed to quash the order dated 16.1.1996 passed by O.P. No. 2- Inspector General/NS, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi (Annexure-14) rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner under Rule 49 of the CISF Rules, 1969 against the order dated 8.6.1988 passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e., O.P. No. 3-Dy. Inspector General of Police CISF Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, (Annexure-10) affirming the orders dated 16.4.1988 & 18.4.1988 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Commandant of CISF Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant (O.P. No. 4), awarding punishment of removal of the petitioner from service with effect from 16.4.1988 and striking off his name from the strength of the Force with effect from 17.4.1988 (FN), vide Annexures-7 & 8. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the preliminary report (Annexure-1), the ord...
Chelli Chinnodu and anr. Vs. Smt. Chelli Kanthamma and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT521
S. Panda, J.1. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the Petitioners in this Civil Revision. They have challenged the Order dated 19.09.2001 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paralakhemundi in T.S. No. 25 of 2000 wherein he has allowed the petition filed by the Plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code permitting her to add four persons, namely, Chelli Srinivas, Chelli Prasad, Smt. Yenni Adiamma and Yenni Narasimhulu as Defendant Nos. 5 to 8 in the suit.2. Though notice on admission was issued to the Plaintiff-Opposite Party No. 1 and the same was made sufficient, she has chosen not to appear in this revision.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows;Opposite Party No. 1 as Plaintiff filed the suit for maintenance against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 claiming to be the wife of Defendant No. 1. She has also challenged the partition and sought for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint writte...
Phanibhusan Rath Vs. Sadasiva Dash @ Sadan @ Sada Dash and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT513
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the Order dated 1.9.2005 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athagarh in T.S. No. 8 of 1996 rejecting an application filed by Defendant No. 1 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act praying to allow the said Defendant to put leading questions to D.W.4 in form of cross-examination.2. The suit has been filed for declaration that the sale deed bearing Nos. 504 and 505 dated 13.2.1995 executed by Opposite Parties 5 and 6 in favour of the Petitioner is illegal, void and inoperative and also for permanent injunction restraining the present Petitioner from coming upon the suit properties described in Scheduled and 2, in the alternative to permit Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 to exercise their right of pre-emption as preferential heirs to purchase the shares of Opposite Parties 5 and 6 described in Schedule-1 and 2 under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act.3. The Petitioner who is Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement...
Mahendra Kumar Mohanty Vs. Collector and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ori170; 104(2007)CLT353; 2008(1)CTLJ442(Ori); 2007(II)OLR189
I. Mahanty, J.1. The writ petitioner herein has filed the present writ application seeking a direction to quash the entire tender process vide Tender Call Notice No. /3587/SW Dated 29.3.2007 under Annexure-1 issued by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar and has prayed to direct the opposite parties to publish the tender call notice once again by giving adequate wide publicity in newspapers and to direct the opposite parties to permit all the eligible persons to participate in the tender process and also to quash the stipulation of residence in the same Block as contained in condition No. 2 under Annexure-1 as according to the petitioner the same is in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.2. Ms. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioner essentially raised the following two contentions:(a) That the impugned tender call notice dated 29.3.2007 was never given wide publicity nor made available to the general public nor published in any newspaper thereby depriving the petitioner (w...
Abdul Samad Vs. Md. QamruddIn and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT734; 2007CriLJ4383
Pradip Mohanty, J. 1. In the instant criminal revision, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th January, 2007 passed the J.M.F.C, Rajgangpur in I.C.C. No. 19 of 2006 framing charge under Section 448 IPC against him.2. The case of the complainant-opposite party No. 1 is that the petitioner is the tenant of a shop room, which had fallen to his share. An agreement was executed on 21.4.2003 on the basis whereof vacant possession of the shop room was handed over to the petitioner for a period of three years subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. It has been further alleged that the complainant asked the petitioner to handover the vacant possession by a lawyer's notice dated 3.3.2006 to which the petitioner submitted a reply through his lawyer making it clear that he did not want to handover the vacant possession to the complainant. The complainant then sent a legal notice through his advocate on 19.6.2006 terminating the tenancy with effect from 1.7.2006. The notice w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »