Orissa Court October 2008 Judgments
Shri Pravat Kumar Kar Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR864
1. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the reliefs for which the present petitioner had also filed W.P.(C) No. 6782 of 2008 and the said writ petition has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 13.5.2008. The relevant part of the order reads as under:The up-set price was fixed at Rs. 82,060/- for the said auction. Rule 38 of Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 provides that notice for such auction shall be published in a Newspaper on two consecutive days in a vernacular language. In the instant case there is no averment that such notice was not published on two consecutive days in a vernacular language. In absence of such averments, we cannot presume that the provisions of Rule 38 of OMMC Rules, 2004 has not been complied with.As such we do not find any reason to set aside the settlement of the sand sairat in favour of the Opp.party No. 3.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Pitambar Acharya, learned Co...
Tag this Judgment!Mallik Najar Alli Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-17-2008
Reported in: 107(2009)CLT135; [2009(121)FLR122]; 2008(II)OLR929
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner's Original Application No. 549 of 2000 filed before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar having been dismissed by the judgment and order dated 19.7.2002, he has filed this writ application challenging the said judgment and order.The case of the petitioner is that while he was posted as Inspector-in-charge of Hirakud Police Station, a situation developed on account of which because of rivalry between the two groups of people, murder of one Surya Bohidar took place who was also a local Trade union leader and husband of the Chairperson of Hirakud NAC. Because of the above incident, a disciplinary proceeding was started against the petitioner on the charge that had the petitioner been alert, the murder of Surya Bohidar could have been avoided. But he did not take effective steps even though one platoon of O.S.A.P. had been stationedat Hirakud and he did not utilise the armed police around the clock.2. The enquiry into the charges was conducted b...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kumar Penthei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT816
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This Government Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order Dated 19th September, 1984 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No. 13 of 1984 acquitting the Respondents of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal as against Respondent No. 6, Gautam Singh @ Naik was dismissed vide Order Dated 17.12.1990.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Banshidhar Sahu, son of Haguru Sahu of village Godhuli under Telkoi police station in the district of Keonjhar appeared in Telkoi police station at 8.30 a.m. on 8.10.1983 along with one Rama Chandra Swain and Dheneswar Sahu of his village and lodged verbal report in the P.S. stating that Panu Sahu, the elder brother of the father of the informant is a rich man and maintains his livelihood by cultivation. He has a rice mill at Bhimkand and his only son Iswar Sahoo looked after the management of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj Kumar Padhi and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)OLR5
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. The relief claimed by the petitioner(s) in all the writ petitions being more or less the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.2. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 12706 of 2006 were initially appointed as Junior Engineers and while in service they acquired degree qualification and were allowed to remain in-charge of Subdivisions/Upgraded Sectional Posts pending finalization of amendment to Orissa Service of Engineers Rules. They were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis. When the stipendiary engineers were regularized by virtue of the Validation Act, 2003 and no decision was taken with regard to the Degree-holder Junior Engineers, they filed O.A. No. 1575 of 2002 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal to regularize their promotion as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis by amending the Rules or by bringing their case within the scope of the Validation Act by implementing the decision of the High Level Committ...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Ram, After Him His L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Purna Chandra Ram and o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT837
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Judgment/decree passed by the Learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Cuttack in Title Appeal No. 56 of 1995 confirming the Judgment/decree passed by the Learned Civil Judge (SD), 1st Court, Cuttack in T.S. No. 223 of 1984 are assailed in this Second Appeal by the Defendants in the suit.2. The suit was one for partition and mesne profits. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts necessary for effectual adjudication of the dispute among the parties are as stated hereinafter:One Kartik Ram (since dead) had two wives, Dukhi (Defendant No. 1 - since dead) and Malli ( Plaintiff No. 1-since dead). Dukhi Defendant No. 1 had two sons being Jogendra (Defendant No. 2 - Appellant No. 1 in this appeal - since dead) and Bholanath (Defendant No. 3 - present Appellant No. 2). Malli had three daughters and two sons, namely, Gouri Ram (Plaintiff No. 4), Haramani (Plaintiff No. 5), Puma (Plaintiff No. 2), Sarojini (Plaintiff No. 6) and Manorapjan (Plaintiff No. 3). The suit property as wo...
Tag this Judgment!Hrudamani Bewa Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT889; 2008(II)OLR828
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 18.08.2005 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Banpur dismissing the complaint (1.C.C. No. 103 of 2005) under Section 203 Cr.P.C, with a finding that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against opposite parties 2 and 3.2. Case of the petitioner is that she filed a complaint under Sections 294/323/506/34 IPC and Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act before the J.M.F.C., Banpur, which was registered as 1.C.C.. No. 103 of 2005. After recording of her initial statement, two witnesses were examined by her under Section 202 Cr.P.C. But on 18.08.2005, learned J.M.F.C. dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that essential ingredients of the aforesaid offences are not established; that there are material discrepancies in the statement of the complainant and that of the witnesses; and that although one Ratnakar Sethi was named as an occurrence witness, he was not examined by the complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Sauri Behera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR831
L.K. Mishra, J.1. Even though the case has been listed for admission today, on the prayer and consent of learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.2. Heard learned Counsel for both sides.The petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No. 32 of 1991 of the Court of learned J.M.F.C, Khallikote for the offence under Sections 294/324/323/337/34 of I.P.C. On 9.4.2007 when the case was posted for judgment, the judgment could not be pronounced due to absence of all the accused persons including the present petitioner. Therefore, the judgment was kept in a sealed cover and N.B.W. was issued against the accused persons. On 27.8.2008 the present petitioner was arrested, produced before the Court and remanded to custody. A petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 353(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Cr.P.C') to pronounce the judgment. Another petition was filed to grant bail to him in the alternative. The learned Magistrate vide ord...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Raja @ Sk. Noorhassan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT784
ORDERL.K. Mishra, J.1. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.2. It is not necessary to enter into the merits of the case since I iropose to dispose of the case on a preliminary point.3. The Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No. 242 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C, Salipur involving offence under Sections 302/376/511/34 of I.P.C. His prayer for bail was rejected by the learned J.M.F.C. for which he approached the Sessions Court in a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short). The learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack rejected the bail application vide Order Dated 30.06.2008 passed in BLAPL No. 674 of 2008 which is quoted in extenso:30.6.2008. In absence of learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, this bail is put up before this Court and heard the learned defense Counsel appearing for the Petitioners Sk. Puka @ Sk. Mujafar, Sajid Khan and Sk. Raja & Sk. Nurhassan, allegedly accused in G.R. Case No. 242 of 2008 ...
Tag this Judgment!Reena Dutta Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR872
ORDERL.K. Mishra, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No. 1633 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak involving offence under Sections 468/417/409/506 of the Indian Penal Code (herein-after called the 'I.P.C.'). She was earlier granted interim bail for a period of two months by this Court. This order relates to her prayer for regular bail.2. Heard Sri Biplab Kumar Dash learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the question of bail.3. The petitioner is working as Asst. Manager, Customer Care in Balasore Mercantile Credit Co-operative Ltd., Bhadrak Branch (here-in-after called 'BMCC Ltd.'). Initially F.I.R. was lodged on 16.11.2006 by Shri S.N. Mahapatra, Chief Executive Secretary of BMCC Ltd. against Shri B.N. Padhy, Branch Manager alleging financial irregularities and misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 1.80 crores. During investigation involvement of some other persons including the present petitioner came to t...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Sundar Tripathi Vs. Mamata Tripathi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT825
B.P. Das, J.1. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant, who was the Opposite Party in Civil Proceeding No. 782 of 2004 filed by the Respondent for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act'), on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The Civil Proceeding was finally decided by the Family Court, Cuttack, by Judgment dated 20th September, 2007 allowing the divorce under Section 13 of the Act by dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties on 30th November, 1992. The Appellant has raised the following questions of law for adjudication in this appeal:A. Whether the Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack was right in passing the decree of divorce Under Section 13 of the Act when a proceeding Under Section 9 -thereof was pending consideration before the same Court for restitution of conjugal right?B. Whether the decree of divorce can be passed on the ground of cruelty without observing that the marriage between the parties has brok...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »