Orissa Court February 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.
Natabara Mohanty (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Adhikari Moharana and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT383
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard further argument. The Second Appeal is disposed of in the following manner.2. Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 9 of 1978 of the Court of Additional Munsif, Khandapara is the Appellant in this Second Appeal. He filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule land amongst the Defendants No. 2 to 4 and to allot the land purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 04.09.1976 from Defendant No. 2 to the share of the said Defendant and to grant recovery of possession in favour of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged forcible act of dispossession by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Each of the Defendants 1, 2 and 3 filed their separate written statement. Defendant No. 3, the eldest of the brothers amongst Defendants 2, 3 and 4 claimed himself to be the 'Karta' of the family and supported the case of Defendant No. 1 of a sale transaction of the entire suit plot measuring Ac.0.06 decimals through a registered deed of sale on 24.12.1975. Defendant No. 3 further pleaded that for th...
Sundar Nanda and Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(I)OLR547
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The two revisions having been arisen from a common judgment and the Advocates in both the revisions being same, the same are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that on 2.8.1990 at about 4 P.M. while P.Ws. 2 and 5, two constables of Tusura Police Station were escorting the accused persons under one handcuff to a Court in Bolangir, in a bus after the name of Sibani, on the way, when the bus halted at Deogaon Bus Stand, they fled away with the handcuff. P.Ws. 2 and 5 chased to apprehend them, but failed. So, both of them lodged a written report before the O.I.C. of Tusura Police Station. As the allegation contained in the report, which was treated as F.I.R. revealed a cognizable case under Sections 224/34 of I.P.C., the O.I.C. registered Tusura P.S. Case No. 72 of 1990 and directed the S.I. of Police, P.W. 9 to investigate into the case. Accordingly P.W. 9 investigated into it and in course of investigation, examined the wit...
Ashok Sahoo, Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(I)OLR984
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The appellants in all the four appeals have been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 341/376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,0007-for conviction under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C. but not separate sentence has been awarded for their conviction under Section 341 of the I.P.C. by the learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast-Track Court), Rourkela in S.T. No. 93/13/2003.2. P.W.9 is the victim and the informant. On 31.7.2002 she lodged an information before the O.I.C. Tangarpali Police Station, Rourkela alleging therein that at about 7.30 P.M. on that date she was taking 'GUP CHUP' in the local Laxmi market. Accused persons Baya, Junul, and Tuklu with others namely Chhotu, Fagu, Deba, Tempo were standing nearby. Accused Baya enquired from her as to whether she returned from her work or not. She did not respond to such query and proceeded towards her h...
Kanhu Alias Kanhei Gouda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2716
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. The three appellants in both the appeals have been convicted by the learned ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Aska in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2004 (S.C. No. 432 of 2004-GDC) for commission of offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and have also further been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default, to undergo R.I. for one year.2. Case of the prosecution as revealed from the FIR is that on 17-1-2004 at about 7 p.m. Indra Gouda, Henka alias Ananta Gouda, Bhagaban Gouda and Kanhel Gouda who were accused persons went to village Sumantapolli and dragged the deceased to the river bank. Brother of the informant accused Kanhei caught hold of the deceased while other three accused persons assaulted the deceased by means of kati and axe on the right shoulder and left wrist causing cut injuries. When the deceased cried loudly, her husband (the informant) rushed to the spot and saw a...
Krupasindhu Das and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2788
L. Mohapatra, JJ.1. Both the Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29-5-1995 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No. 86/12 of 1993. As it appears, eighteen persons were charged for commission of offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, but seventeen persons faced trial and the case was split up against one of the accused persons. Out of the seventeen accused persons who faced trial, five were acquitted, namely Dura Jena, Dinabandhu Das, Parsu Das, Padan Jena and Kasi Das. All the appellants were convicted for commission of offence under Section 148 of the IPC. Learned trial Court is silent with regard to award of any sentence for conviction under Section 148, IPC and thereby, has not awarded separate sentence thereunder, though the same should have been specifically pointed out. Appellants Krupasindhu Das, Narahari Jena, Laxmidhar Jena, Jairam Das, Trilochan Ghadei, Alekha Ghadei and Gobinda Mohanty...
South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT396; 2008(1)OLR407; (2008)14VST298(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the revisional order dated 13.3.1992 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa (hereinafter called as the 'revisional authority') in Revision Case No. SA.517/91 -92, confirming the order dated 30.10.1989 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (hereinafter called as 'the S.T.O.), Sambalpur-III Circle, Jharsuguda, imposing penalty of Rs. 37,00,000/-under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.S.T. Act').2. In nutshell, the background facts which are relevant for the purpose of dealing with this writ petition are as follows:The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Seepat Road, Bilaspur in the State of Madhya Pradesh and is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. It has an unit in Brajarajnagar in the district of Sambalpur (Orissa) and it is a Government of India undertaking. The business of the petitioner is to extract c...
Manas Ranjan Majhi Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT474
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the State.The Petitioner in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the investigation in G.R. Case No. 440 of 2007 arising out of Bhuban P.S. Case No. 113 of 2007 pending in the Court of the Learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar initiated on an F.I.R. lodged by the uncle of the victim making allegation that the victim was kidnapped by the Petitioner.2. It has been stated in the petition that the Petitioner has got married to the victim and the marriage has been registered by the Marriage Officer.3. It appears that one of the Counsel for the Petitioner, on making an application under the Right to information Act, 2005 to the District Sub-Registrar, Dhenkanal, the said District Sub-Registrar intimated him that the Petitioner and the victim have got married on 10.12.2007. It further appears that the victim was a major by then.4. Mr. B.K. Panda, Learned Counsel has entered appearance on ...
Shib Sankar Mohapatra and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(I)OLR879; 2010(I)OLR(NULL)102
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Since similar question is involved in all the five writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The brief facts of the case are that Original Application No. 23 of 2000 was filed by one Sudhir Chandra Roy, one of the opposite parties in the instant writ petitions alleging that he was appointed as regular Sub-Inspector of Police and joined the post on 4.1.1973. Thereafter he was given promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police with effect from 12.3.1991. A provisional gradation list of Inspectors of Police was circulated with the forwarding letter dated 23.6.1999 in which his name was shown at SI. No. 135. It was claimed by him that the previous gradation list alleged to have been prepared in 1979 showing the seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police of different categories was never circulated and as such his position in that gradation list was not known to him and when the promotion was made in the year 1991 he had no i...
Narayan Prasad Mishra and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 105(2008)CLT792
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Both the review petitions were heard analogously on 29.01.2008 and this common order shall abide the result.Fifteen Petitioners in Review Petition No. 10 of 2003 claim to be the teaching staff of the Mangala Mahavidyalaya, Kakatpur Governing Body of the said institution have filed the other Review Petition. In both the review petitions, the prayer is common. They pray to recall/review Judgment in O.J.C. No. 9794 of 2000 passed on 26.08.2002. Petitioners in that O.J.C. are Opp.Parties 4 to 18 and 3 to 17 respectively in the above noted two review petitions. Secretary and Director, Higher Education representing the State were the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in all the cases/petitions. Petitioner in Review petition No. 136 of 2003 is Opposite Party No. 3 in the other two proceedings.2. For the sake of convenience, the teaching staff who have -applied for review are hereinafter described as Petitioners, the governing body of the educational institutions as Governing bod...
Gobinda Chandra Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)OLR521
I. Mahanty, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a PDS licensee and was served with a show cause notice on 24.1.2008 under Annexure-2 and simultaneously, on the self-same day an order was passed suspending the licence of the petitioner. He submits that Clause-10 of the Orissa POS (Control) Order, 2002 provides that the Licensing Authority may (sic) or suspend the licence by an order in writing, but the said clause also provides that no order shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation or suspension.2. Mr. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that exigency of the circumstance so necessitated for passing the order of suspension after issuance of the show cause notice. He further submits that individual interest can be waived for public interest and therefore, no interference in the impugned order ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »