Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR560
ORDER1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioners have challenged in this writ petition the order dated 22.4.2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhadrak in F.A.O. No. 6 of 2008 setting aside the order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in LA. No. 35 of 2008 and directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land till disposal of the original suit.3. Opposite party as the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition. In the said suit, he filed a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking injunction against the defendants. He specifically stated in the said petition that the parties have possessed the land amicably, but the properties have not been partitioned by metes and bounds. If the defendants will not be restrained, plaintiff will be prejudiced and sustain irreparable loss and injury and if construction will be raised over...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR383
ORDERS. Panda, J.1. Challenge has been made in this writ petition to the order dated 28.6.1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore in S.J. Appeal No. 21 of 1988 allowing the petition filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The appellate Court allowed the application for acceptance of additional evidence by framing an additional issue and issued a direction to give specific finding on the said issue to the trial Court without hearing the appeal on merit.3. The Supreme Court in the case Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and Ors. reported in : [1951]2SCR258 has held that 'The true test, therefore, is whether the appellate Court is able to pronounce the judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced'. From the above, it is crystal clear that the necessity can be adjudged upon examining the evidence which is ordinarily done after the commencement of hearing. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR438
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Initially petitioner filed this writ petition with multifarious prayer, viz., (1) to quash the order Annexure-17, i.e., the order in review passed on 14.10.1999 by opposite party No. 2, i.e., the Director, Higher Education, Orissa; (2) to quash the order Annexure-18, by which grant-in-aid has been provided to opposite party No. 4 as per the order of the Director dated 29.06.2004; and (3) to accord approval of the service of the petitioner against the first post of Lecturer in Oriya.2. In view of the provision in Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, the matter relating to approval of the post is incidental and ancillary to claim and sanction of grant-in-aid. Such disputes initiated by any concerned parties are to be adjudicated by the State Education Tribunal. Appellate jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court under Section 24-C of the Act. After being conscious of the same, on the first date of hearing on 24.03.2008 petitioner submitted that he does no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR838
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The parties to these two Writ applications and the subject-matters being the same, on the request of the learned Counsel both the cases are taken up together.2. The property in dispute is situated in Mouza-Mirzapur under Cuttack district measuring Ac.0.74 'decimals appertaining to plot Nos. 902 and 796 under Khata No. 344. The same stood recorded in the 1930 Settlement in the name of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu, Bije-Puri under Bajyapti Madhya Satwadhikari' status. Babaji Charan Mohanty and others were recorded as the Marfatdars. Opposite parties 3 to 6 in OJC No. 2288 of 1995 claimed that the said land was being cultivated by their father during his lifetime and after him they were cultivating the same as Bhag Tenants. They also asserted that they were paying Bhag dues to the intermediary prior to vesting under proper receipts. Admittedly the estate vested in the State in consonance with a blanket Notification dated 25th April, 1963 issued under Section 3-A of the Oriss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR201
S.C. Parija, J.1. The moot question which arises for consideration in the present writ petition, is that when the Inquiring Officer, during the course of disciplinary proceeding comes to a conclusion that all the charges alleging misconduct against a Government official are not proved then can the Disciplinary Authority differ from that and give a contrary finding without affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer.2. The brief facts of the case is that while the petitioner was working as Soil Conservation Officer, Puri, he was transferred and his services were placed under Orissa State Cashew Development Corporation for posting as General Manager (Technical). Subsequently, vide Office Order dated 12.06.1998, the petitioner was posted as Principal, Soil Conservation Training Institute, Koraput. On the same date i.e., 12.06.1998 the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department issued Office Order under Rule 12(1)(a) of the Orissa Civil Services (Cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4170; 2008(II)OLR513
L. Mohapatra, J.1. All the three appellants having been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 302/304-B/498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life for their conviction under Section 302/34 and 304-B/34 IPC, imprisonment for three years for their conviction under Section 498-A/34 IPC and imprisonment for one year for their conviction under Section 4 of the D.P. Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. No. 20/66 of 1996, have preferred this appeal against such order of conviction and sentence.2. Case of the prosecution as revealed from the F.I.R. is that deceased Kanakalata Arakha had married appellant No. 1 Karunakar Arakha on 21.5.1993. At the time of marriage, a cash of Rs. 20,000/-, gold chain and other house-hold articles as per demand of the appellants had been given. Four to five months after marriage, a further sum of Rs. 20,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT511
I. Mahanty, J.1. The Petitioner Smt. Kanaka Sahoo has been appointed as a Lecturer in Sociology against the First post on 10.08.1988 in Pattamundai Women's College in the district of Kendrapara. In this writ application, she has sought to challenge the Order Dated 10.02.2003 (Annexure-10) whereby the State Government have refused to accord approval to her appointment and to release consequential service benefits, inter alia, on the ground that the State Government have not yet extended the financial benefits in favour of other similarly situated persons who are eligible for grant-in-aid after 1.6.1994.2. The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 16312 of 2001 and that writ application came to be disposed of by this Court by its Order Dated 15.1.2002. By the said order, this Court was pleased to direct the State authorities to take a decision regarding approval of the Petitioner's appointment and release of consequential service benefits within a reasonable time. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR372
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment dated 23.12.1988 passed by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Berhampur convicting the appellants of the charge under Section 457 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,0007-each and in default to undergo R.I. for three months more in S.T. No. 16 of 1988 is assailed in all these three Criminal Appeals.2. Out of five appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1989, two being appellant No. 2-Bhagirathi Jena and appellant No. 5-Bipin Kumar Mohanty having died in the meanwhile, the appeal is confined to appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4, being Suresh Chandra Jena, Sarat Kumar Dhal Ranjeet and Durga Madhav Panda respectively.Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1990 has been filed by one Ramesh Chandra Panda who was the informant in the case, being aggrieved by the direction of the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Berhampur as to forfeiture of the seized gold (M.O. III and IV) to the State. According to the said app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori187
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. The dispute in the present Writ Petition is with regard to succession to the office of the hereditary trustee of Gobardhan Math, Puri. The said Math is a public religious endowment governed under the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Admittedly Jagatguru Shankaracharya Niranjan Dev Tirthaswamy was the last hereditary trustee of Gobardhan Math. During his lifetime he had voluntarily relinquished his office and had intimated the said fact in writing to the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, opposite party No. 2, by registered post. While matter stood thus, Shri Nischalananda Saraswati Dev Tirthaswami claiming to be the successor of late hereditary trustee Jagatguru Shankaracharya Niranjan Dev Tirthaswami filed an application under Section 36 read with Section 39 of the Act before the Commissioner of Endowments to recognise him as the hereditary trustee of the Math. The said application was regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR262
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment dated 03.2.1990 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur convicting the appellant of the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.1. for five years in S.T. No. 145/81 of 1989 is assailed in this Criminal Appeal.2. The criminal action was set in motion on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by one Pratap Kumar Mohanty P.W. 2 inter alia alleging that the accused-appellant along with one Rabi was staying as a tenant in the house of P.W. 2. By efflux of time the accused-appellant developed cordial relationship with the family members of P.W. 2. In the morning of 20.6.1989 taking advantage of absence of P.W. 2 in his house and his wife P.W. 1 was engaged in household work, called the victim girl-Sangita P.W. 3 aged about 7 to 8 years to his room on the plea of fetching some 'Gudakhu'. Sangita-P.W. 3 without any idea about the ill motive of the accused went to his room with some 'Gudakhu'. The accused was lying on the bed and he ask...
Tag this Judgment!