Orissa Court August 2007 Judgments
Sri Dilip Kumar Patro Vs. Sri M. Gopikrishna Rao
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT82; 2007(II)OLR524
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In the instant civil revision, the petitioner assails the order dated 26.06.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in T.S.No. 128 of 1997 rejecting his application under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 filed for rescission of the contract on the ground that the plaintiff-opposite party did not comply with the judgment and decree passed in the above noted suit and committed default in depositing the balance consideration of Rs. 1,41,844/- within the time stipulated in the decree to get the sale deed executed.2. The brief facts of the case are that the present opposite party, as plaintiff, filed the above noted suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant-petitioner. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit on 07.04.2001 with direction to the defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of the decree on the latter's pa...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Krishna Sahu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented Through the Se ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT680
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. The Petitioner having his retail out let at Jeypore town styled as Kallia Service Unit under the dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has filed the instant Writ Petition with a prayer for quashing the appointment of Opposite Party No. 8. as a dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation for Jeypore Municipal area over plot No. 1/2668 of Khata No. 1451 /178 of mouza Jagadhatripur along N. H. No. 43 in the district of Koraput and to direct the Opposite Parties to comply with the Government of India Circulars dated 31.8.2000 and 25.9.2003 before proceeding with the setting up of the new retail outlet and to quash the Section of Opposite Party No. 8.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Indian Oil Corporation Opposite Party No. 3 vide the advertisement published in various newspapers on 29.11.2003 invited applications for appointment of dealers for retail outlet dealerships of petroleum products in which the retail dealership in question for Jeypore town o...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Motors and anr. Vs. Rushikulya Gramya Bank and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)OLR521
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In this civil revision, the petitioners seek to assail the order dated 10.01.2007 passed in B.P.No. 3 of 2005 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar, Ganjam rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 1 has filed a suit for preliminary decree against the petitioners and Ors. in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar, Ganjam, which has been registered as B.P.No. 3 of 2005. The said suit was filed on 23.3.2005. The petitioners after notice entered appearance and filed their written statement together with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. to reject the plaint. But the learned Civil Judge dismissed the said application on 10.01.2007 with the finding that the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of absence of cause of action. So far as the question of valuation and payment of court-fee is concerned, the trial Court held that the suit had been admitted af...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sabitri Sahu Vs. Collector and District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT710
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. By means of this Writ Petition the Petitioner has challenged the decision of Opposite Party No. 2, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for opening of a new retail outlet of petrol and high speed diesel at Odagaon and the appointment of Opposite Party No. 3. as a dealer of BPCL in respect of the outlet at Odagaon.2. The case of the Petitioner is that upon her application to open a retail outlet of IBP Co.Ltd. at Odagaon, the Collector and District Magistrate, Nayagarh granted no objection certificate in her favour for opening of the said retail outlet. Thereafter, the Petitioner invested huge amount of more than Rs. 30,00,000/- to develop the land and provide all facilities as directed by M/s. IBP CO. Ltd. where after she was allowed to open the IBP retail Outlet for MS,HSD and Lubricants at Odagaon and running the same in the name of M/s. Radha Krushna Filling Station since 12.12.2005. According to the norms and policy of the Oil Companies, no retail outl...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Mallick Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented Through the Secre ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Ori54; 104(2007)CLT715
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. By means of this Writ Petition the Petitioner has challenged the action of Opposite Party No. 2, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in opening a new retail outlet of petrol and high speed diesel at Somanathpur, Kakatpur on the ground that the retail outlet/filling station of Indian Oil Corporation Limited of the Petitioner is functioning in the same village. Opposite Party No. 2. had submitted an application-before the Collector, Puri (Opposite Party No. 3, for grant of no-objection certificate for opening a new retail outlet at Somanathpur, kakatpur. It is alleged that the proposal to open the retail outlet is against the policy, norms and guidelines for the opening of new outlets by the Oil Companies.3. The Petitioner applied to the Indian Oil Corporation to appoint him as a dealer for opening of a retail outlet of petrol and high speed diesel at Astarang and vide letter dated 2.7.1981 he was allowed to open the retail outlet for H.S.D. in that location an...
Tag this Judgment!Natabar Majhi and ors. Vs. Bata Majhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT792
S. Panda, J.1. Challenge in this Civil Revision is to the Order Dated 17.7.2004 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack in Title Suit No. 29/92(FD) rejecting the application of the Petitioners to withdraw the suit with a liberty to bring a fresh suit.2. The facts of the case relevant for appreciation of the questions raised In this Civil Revision are as follows;Petitioners being the Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition against the Defendants the present Opposite Parties. The suit was preliminarily decreed ex parte against the said Defendants. The final decree proceeding has also been commenced after acceptance of the Commissioner's report as per the preliminary decree. At that stage the Plaintiff-Petitioners had filed a petition for amendment of the plaint to delete one lot of property from the suit schedule as the said property was wrongfully included in the plaint. The petition for amendment was rejected on 29.1.2004. Plaintiff-Petitioners had also fi...
Tag this Judgment!Kalinga Mining Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 9 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT737
ORDERA.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by M/s. Kalinga Mining Corporation and the main prayer is to quash the approval to the grant of mining lease in favour of the legal heirs of late Dr. Sarojini Pradhan over an area of 171.226 hectares in village Kalaparbat in the district of Keonjhar given by the Central Government for a period of 20 years under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the mining lease application by the legal heirs of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan and contended that on the death of Dr. Pradhan, the application for mining lease filed by her abates and her legal representatives cannot maintain the same.It appears that the impugned order of the Central Government was passed pursuant to the Judgment of this Court dated 2.7.2001 in OJC No. 11537 of 1999.3. The relevant facts of the case are that the Petitioner applied b...
Tag this Judgment!Paradip Port Trust Vs. General Secretary, Utkal Port and Dock Workers ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT763; (2008)ILLJ452Ori
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Management of Paradip Port-Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'PPT') challenging the Judgment dated 23.7.2004 passed by a Learned Judge of the writ Court in W.P. (C) No. 6393 of 2003. By the said Judgment the Learned Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by PPT challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal.An the Writ Petition PPT challenged the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 112 of 2001. Though three items of dispute were involved in the reference, PPT's challenge was confined to one item. The said item of dispute is as follows:Whether, the claim of the Union regarding 40 workers as per list enclosed should be treated as regular workers of Paradip Port Trust and paid regular wages at par with the similar worker of Paradip Port Trust Management. If so, to what relief the workers are entitled and from which date2. The Learned Judge h...
Tag this Judgment!Premananda Mohapatra Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT822
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. By means of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the advertisement dated 10.6.2005 published in the Oriya daily, The Sambad, inviting applications for selection of dealer for opening of a Retail Outlet at Banki by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short, 'BPCL').2. The case of the Petitioner is that he is an Orthopaedically Handicapped person and was granted with the Retail Outlet dealership of Indian Oil Corporation at Banki in the year 1985 with a social objective category of Physically Handicap and since then he is running the outlet in the name of M/s.Gopinath Filling Station. While the matter stood thus, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited published an advertisement in the Oriya daily, the Sambad for opening of retail outlets in different places of the State of Orissa including Banki. The further case of the Petitioner is that according to the norms and policy of the Oil Companies, no retail outlet can be opened within ten ki...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Behera and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: II(2008)BC682; 2008CriLJ839
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In this revision, the petitioners call in question the legality of the order dated 17-4-2006 passed in C.T. Case No. 693 of 2006/I.C.C. Case No. 48 of 2006 whereby the learned S.D.J.M. Angul has directed the O.I.C., Angul P.S. for investigation of the case under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. and to submit final form within a stipulated date.2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2, as complainant, instituted a complaint case against the present petitioners before the learned S.D.J.M., Angul, which was registered as I.C.C. Case No. 48 of 2006. The complainant runs a workshop, i.e., a manufacturing unit of gold ornaments in the name and style 'Sudarshan Alankar'. The accused persons, petitioners herein, are well known to him since long. They have a similar workshop, namely, 'Rajeswari Alankar' at village Kumanda of Angul. Petitioner No. 1 has also another business unit, namely, 'Durga Alankar' near College Square, Angul. It is alleged that on 28-12-2005, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »