Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori164; (2008)106CALLT160; 2008(II)OLR49
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 12.2.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 13052 of 2006.2. On a perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the writ petitioner was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 62 of 2004. In this said suit, the writ petitioner-defendant filed her written statement. The appellant was the opposite party in the writ petition and the plaintiff in the said suit.3. By the impugned judgment, learned Judge of the writ Court held that the order which was passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi in Civil Suit No. 62 of 2004 cannot be sustained and His Lordship was pleased to set aside the said order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi.4. By the said order, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) inter alia held that there was delay in filing the counter claim and the counter claim was filed by the defendant in the suit without ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori88; 106(2008)CLT324; 2008(I)OLR659
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the action taken by the opposite parties in dispossessing the petitioner from his residential house at village Uttara Sasan, P.O. Kausalyaganga, P.S. Pipili, District Puri. He alleges that he has been dispossessed from his house and that dispossession was suppressed by the Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Puri, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. It is further alleged that the dispossession of the petitioner was at the instance of opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 on the basis of notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act. In the writ petition only notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act has been disclosed and the grievance of the petitioner is that no notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act was given by opposite party Nos. 6 and 7. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 that the notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT659
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Respondent has not appeared after service of notice.2. Heard Learned Addl. Government Advocate and the Judgment is as follows:3. Award dated 10.02.1995 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Kamakhyanagar in L.A. Misc. Case No. 22 of 1993 is under challenge.4. An area of AC. 0.57 decimals of land from Plot Nos. 1043 and 1044 under Khata No. 83 of village Chandpur was acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') for Rengali Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market price at Rs. 14,000/- per acre. The loser of the land, i.e., Respondent claimed for a higher valuation at Rs. 5,000/- per Ghunta i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre.5. In course of inquiry, one witness was examined on behalf of claimant-Respondent where as no witness was examined from the side of the Appellant. On assessment of evidence on record and also referring to another award passed for a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT695
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. The Petitioner challenges the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on 26.12.2006 in I.D. Case No. 9 of 2000.None appeared for the Opp. Party No. 2, in spite of valid service of notice on him, as reflected in the office note.2. Mr. Ray, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that a reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act, was made to the Tribunal to the following effect:Whether the retrenchment of 27 casual workers (as per list enclosed) by the Management of D.C.I, with effect from 26.9.1997 is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled toThe Learned Tribunal, after due enquiry and after taking evidence from both the sides, passed the award, inter alia, holding that the engagement of the workers were contractual in nature and for a specific period and in view of such nature of engagement, their termination on completion of the period for which they were engaged will not amount to retrenchme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT583; [2008(117)FLR511]
S. Panda, J.1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, challenges the relieve Order Dated 31st July, 2002 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party No. 2, violating the terms and conditions of the guidelines stipulated for implementation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred as 'the VRS') for the employees of public sector undertakings.2. The facts, as narrated in the record, are as follows;The Petitioner was working as Accounts Clerk in the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation Head Office at Bhubaneswar. While continuing as such, he was put under suspension in the year 2001. Thereafter, on being reinstated on 29.5.2002, he joined on 11.6.2002. Pending enquiry, charges were framed on 21.2.2002 which was received by the Petitioner on 11.3.2002.3. Since the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (in short, 'OSRTC') was running in a financial stringency, by Order Dated 9.9.1998 Opposite Party No. 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT701; 2008(II)OLR118
M.M. Das, J.1. The dispute raised in the present writ application lies within a narrow compass. For appreciating the respective contention of the parties, it is necessary to state the facts in brief:The Opp. Party No. 1 being the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (for short, 'the B.D.A.') introduced a commercial scheme at Chandrasekharpur , Bhubaneswar known as 'District Centre' covering an area Ac. 35.52 decimals of raw land consisting of (A) approximately 144 Nos. of constructed shop-cum-residences in the ground-floor, 72 residential units in the 1st floor and 72 units in the second floor (B) Pindi 96 Nos. in 8 blocks having 12 pindies in each block (C) commercial plots as per Annexure-I of the Brochure consisting of 290 plots of different seizes for being utilized for construction of commercial units cost of which was worked out in Annexure-I of the Brochure and (D) other plots and bigger plots for various other purposes like Clinic, Petrol Pump Restaurant, Cinema Hall etc. as liste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori94; (2008)106CALLT183; 2008(I)OLR588
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in Title Appeal No. 34.of 1990 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Talcher in T.S. No. 19 of 1989.2. The appellant, as plaintiff, filed the above noted suit for declaration of his right, title, interest and confirmation of his possession over the suit land or in the alternative for recovery of possession, pleading, inter alia, that he was an orphan staying in the orphanage maintained by the then Ruler of Talcher State. The then Ruler, Hrudaya Chandra Deb gave the suit land measuring Ac.0.12 dec, to him on 2.12.1947 out of compassion in order to provide him shelter. The plaintiff pleaded that he took delivery of possession of that land and has remained in possession of the same ever since and has thus derived title over that land, but the settlement authorities during the current settlement refused to record the suit land in his nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT141; 2008(II)OLR188
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. The Petitioners in this writ application have seek to challenge the Order Dated 27.02.1999 passed by the District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, Balasore in Civil Revision No. 74 of 1997 whereby the Learned District Judge has set aside the Order Dated 27.10.1997 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Balasore allowing an application filed under Order 6, Rule-17 CPC.2. The brief facts of the case are that late Surendra Prasad Choudhury, as Plaintiff, had filed O.S. No. 680 of 1990-1 in the Court of the Munsif, Balasore for correction of record of rights. Subsequently, in view of the observations made by the District Judge in his Judgment dated 9.8.1996 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 37 of 1993, the Plaintiff filed an application in the said suit under Order 6, Rule-17 CPC for amendment of the plaint to implead his wife Padmabati as a co-Plaintiff. On consideration of the objections raised by the defendants to the said application under Order 6, Rule 17, the Learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2008)106CALLT153(NULL)
S.C. Parija, J.1. The Petitioner in this Writ Petition have assailed the voter list prepared for election to the Committee of Management of Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank (here in after referred to as the 'Bank'), a Central Society for electing 15 member Directors to its Committee of Management on the basis of constituencies/zones numbering about 8 in all, organized and carved out as Scheduled Caste (Male), Scheduled Caste (Female), Scheduled Tribe (Male), Scheduled Tribe (Female), Other Backward Class and S.E.B.C. (OBC and SEBC) (Female), all other Female and unreserved, on the basis of race, caste and sex, as discriminatory, unreasonable and violative of the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Petitioners have prayed for the following relief:Issue a Rule Nisi in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or orders calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why such a writ or writs, order or orders shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT135
A.K. Parichha, J.1. That facts leading to the present Writ Petition in substance is that due to cancellation of licence of one M/s. Raja Ram Agency of Padampur Block, one Md. Zaved, who was operating as Kerosene Oil Sub-Wholesaler of Khuntapali under Gaisilat Block of Padampur Sub-Division, was given additional charge of Padampur Block on 12.09.2001 by way of an interim arrangement. In the meantime, Opposite Party No. 1 issued a set of guideline vide its letter dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure-1) to all Collectors stipulating therein inter alia that no person or family member shall be granted any licence as a sub-wholesaler/wholesaler/retailer for S.K. Oil, if either he or any of his family member is in business of S.K. Oil. In that letter, it was specifically mentioned that the appointment of new kerosene Oil sub-wholesaler shall be made only after inviting application for a period of two weeks. Pursuant to this guideline Opposite Party No. 2 directed Sub-Collector, Padampur to initiate proc...
Tag this Judgment!