Orissa Court January 2008 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.
Amulya Kumar Panda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1672; 2008(1)OLR417
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In the instant revision, the petitioner calls in question legality of the order dated 24.4.2006 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Aska in S.C. Nos. 26 and 66 of 2004. By the impugned order, learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the prayer of the prosecution to display video cassettes, which are marked as M.Os. I, V and VI, for better appreciation of the evidence available on record.2. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the purpose of this revision, are that the petitioner along with other accused persons is facing trial in the aforesaid Sessions Cases for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/365/120B IPC. During the course of investigation, the petitioner, while in custody, confessed before the I.O. to commit the above offences and such admission of the petitioner has been recorded through video cassettes at the instance of the I.O. During the course of trial, the aforesaid video cassettes have been marked as M.Os. ...
Bung Balaram Behera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(I)OLR553
I. Mahanty, J.1. The appellant faced trial as an accused for offences under Sections 18 and 20(b)(I)(ix) of the N.D. & P.S. Act as well as 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, in S.T. No. 16/150 of 1990 before the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri. By the judgment dated 15.9.1990, the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri found the appellant not guilty under Section 18 of the N.D. & P.S. Act and acquitted him of the said offence, but found the appellant guilty under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further of two months.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.1988 at about 4.30 P.M., P.W. 1 (A.S.I, of Excise) and P.W. 2 (Constable of Sadar Mobile, Puri) while performing their patrol duty at Sea-beach area found the accused-appellant proceeding towards Swargadwar holding a bag in his hand. It is their further ...
ippili Lakshman Rao Vs. Ippilli Jagannath Swamy Alias Ravi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT472
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. Both the civil revisions are directed against the common Order Dated 11.12.2006 passed by the Learned District Judge, Koraput in T.R. No. 5 and 6 of 2006 rejecting applications for transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The Petitioner as the Plaintiff has filed C.S. No. 16 of 203 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada for partition of the family properties. The Opposite Party in CRP No. 37 of 2007 has also filed C.S. No. 4 of 2003 in the said Court for eviction of the Petitioner from two godowns, which he claims to be in occupation as per the decision of the Arbitrators and for recovery of rent. A petition was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rayagada under Section 10 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to stay further proceeding of C.S. No. 4 of 2003 till disposal of C.S. No. 16 of 2003. The said prayer was rejected by the Trial Court and both the suits were directed to be heard analogously. Thereafte...
Sania Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(I)OLR711
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of detention dated 22.03.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam, Chatrapur under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Alongwith the order of detention dated 22.03.2007, the grounds of detention were also served on the petitioner. There are various grounds in support of the order of detention.2. The petitioner has not challenged the detention on merit, but has essentially assailed the same on the following recitals made in the grounds of detention.While in jail custody you have applied for bail and Registrar, Civil and Sessions Court has directed the OIC, B. Sadar PS to send the case record in B. Sadar P.S. Case No. 14/07 vide letter No. 1506 dtd. 14.2.07 (Annexure XXVIII).Relying upon the aforesaid recital in the grounds of detention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that ...
Motilal Rakhit Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Ori74
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur passed in Title Appeal No. 66 of 1986 (31 of 1987) confirming the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge, Jaipur in Title Suit No. 112 of 1982.2. The plaintiff appellant's case in brief was that he and his brother Maniklal are the owners of the suit premises described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint and they leased out the same to Caltex India Ltd. on 1-3-1961 for a period of 10 years with option to extend the same for a further period of ten years. On expiry of the initial lease period of 10 years the lessee wanted to renew the lease, but the plaintiff owners did not agree as a result lessee Caltex India Ltd. filed Title Suit No. 19 of 1974 in the Court of Munsif, Jaipur for enforcing the renewal of the lease. The suit was decreed. The plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 3 of 1980 against the said decree, but the appeal was also dismissed on 7-4-1981, as it...
Nanda Alias Anant Charan Behra Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1686
I. Mahanty, J.1. In course of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Rath, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant raises a contention that the appellant was a child in terms of Sections 2(d) of the Orissa Children Act, 1992 at the time of the alleged commission of offence.2. In support of such contention, Sri Rath drew my attention to a certificate granted by the Headmaster of Madhuban High School, Madhuban Hat in the district of Cuttack which certifies that the date of birth of the appellant who was a student of that High School is 6th June, 1969. He further submits that the said certificate was acted upon by the trial Court while disposing of the bail application of the appellant pending trial in Crl. Misc. Case No. 2 of 1985 by his order dated 4-2-1985 wherein the learned Asst. Sessions Judge on consideration of the certificate produced by the appellant about his age granted bail to the appellant during the pendency of the trial.3. The appellant was initially acquitted by 'the judgment da...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Dinesh @ Vinesh Chandra Sharma and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT814; [2008(117)FLR321]
I. Mahanty, J.1. In this appeal, the Appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd. has sought to challenge the Judgment dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-Cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in W.C Case No. 205-D/1997 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,49,746/- and further directing to recover the same from Respondent No. 2 within thirty days failing which, it would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 18.8.1997 till the date of deposit of the awarded amount.2. Dr. A.K. Rath, Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, inter alia, contends that in the absence of any assessment pertaining to loss of earning capacity of the claimant by the doctor examined by the claimant, the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation ought not to have suo motu assessed the loss of earning capacity to be 75%. Especially, when the doctor was examined by the Insurance Company, it had assessed the loss of earning cap...
National Aluminium Company Limited and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and or ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)OLR443; (2008)15VST296(Orissa)
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This is the second journey of the petitioners in these writ petitions to this Court occasioned due to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.2. For the purpose of levy and collection of tax on the entry of goods into the local areas of the State of Orissa for consumption, use or sale therein and matters incidental thereto and connected therewith, Orissa State Legislature promulgated the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (Orissa Act 11 of 1999) on 20th of September, 1999. Validity of the said Act was challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions, inter alia, on the following grounds:(a) The State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact the same;(b) The Act opposed to Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India since it hampered free flow of trade throughout the territory of India;(c) There was violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 304(b) of the Constitution inasmuch as no previous sanction of the President was obtained and even otherwise...
Patitapaban Mohapatra Vs. S.E. Eastern Circle and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Ori80; 2008(3)ARBLR136(Orissa); 105(2008)CLT636
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. In all these cases, applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') have been filed for appointment of Arbitrator. All these cases were heard together as it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties that there is no Arbitration Clause whereas Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that there is an Arbitration Clause.2. This batch of applications under Section 11 were taken up by the Bench of Chief Justice, but the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties in support of his contention placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Banalata Sahoo v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 92 (2001) C.L.T. 136 and contended that in the said Judgment Clause 11 of F2 Agreement, which is claimed to be the arbitration clause in these petitions, was interpreted in Banalata Sahoo and it was held that the same is not an Arbitration Clause.3. In view of the...
Janmajay Panda Vs. Lochani Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT749
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard further argument, hearing is concluded and the Judgment is as follows.2. Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 40 of 1977 of the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Jajpur is the Appellant. He filed the suit for partition of plaint schedule-A property and delivery of possession of his share to him. Defendants were described as the original owners or purchasers of the properties from the original owner. Plaintiff lays his claim as against some of the purchasers.3. Though the pleadings of the parties was not supported with a genealogy of the family whose property was prayed to be partitioned, but in course of submission Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that a genealogy in the following manner is apparent from the pleadings noted in the impugned Judgment. Late Gayadhar Late Laxmidhar Late BhagabanLate LaxmidharDurga (widow)Late Gokhei Late Sukadev Late Aparti Late Banshi'LateBairagiLate Duti (wife)DuryodhanGhana Kangali(D-7) (D-6) (D-3)Bani Jani Plaintiffs' case is tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »