Orissa Court August 2008 Judgments
Phiroja Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Western Electricity Supply Company of Or ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Ori63
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. The petitioner, which is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, has sought for a direction to the opposite parties 1 to 4 to provide power supply to the petitioner's unit and to quash the letter under Annexure-3 issued by the Executive Engineer-opposite party No. 4 to the petitioner-Company.2. M/s. A.B.S. Spinning Orissa Ltd. (in short 'ABSSOL', which was a wholly owned subsidiary company of the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (IDCOL)-opposite party No. 5, was wound up by the order of the Company Judge. The winding up proceeding was initiated on being referred to by the BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, as there was no chance of revival of the said Company. Pursuant to order passed by the Company Judge, the opposite party No. 5 floated tender notices for the sale of the three Spinning Mills. Various parties participated in the tender process. After a long drawn legal ba...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Agarwal Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR581
ORDER1. Notice on behalf of the opposite parties has been accepted by Sri C.A. Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Forest Department. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Rabinarayan Nayak and the learned Standing Counsel for the Forest Department-opposite parties. Sri C.A. Rao has received instruction. However, counter affidavit has not been filed. Therefore, counter affidavit may be filed within two weeks. List this case in the week commencing 22nd of September, 2008 for final disposal at admission stage. We have considered the question of interim release of the vehicle, which is a Bus bearing Registration No. OR-02-AJ-8199.2. It appears that on 1.8.2008, 58 bundles of Kendu Leave were found loaded on the roof of the above noted passenger bus. The Forest Officers raided the bus and recovered the Kendu Leave bundles and seized the same along with the passenger bus. For Kendu leaves in Orissa there is a special Act namely Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Panjum Bibi @ Ramjan Bibi and 7 ors. Vs. Najma Alim and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT731
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order Dated 2.11.2004 passed by the Learned Single Judge in OJC No. 8900 of 1998 by which the application for impleadment filed by the Respondent No. 1, Najma Alim has been allowed reversing the order passed by the Learned District Judge in Civil Revision No. 75 of 1996 and confirming the order of the Trial Court dated 1.11.1996.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are as follows:The Plaintiffs-Appellants filed Suit No. 54 of 1994 claiming themselves to be the owner of the suit property with a prayer for eviction of the tenant-sole Defendant therefrom on various grounds. During the course of trial Respondent No. 1, Najma Alim, filed an application for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'CPC') claiming herself to have acquired title by way of registered sale deed from the original owner of the said property and further alleging that the suit proc...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Behera Vs. Dibakar Behera and 4 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 108(2008)CLT463
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 27.9.2007 passed in OJC No. 1320 of 1999 by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant challenging the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Puri - Respondent no. 3 in proceedings under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') initiated at the instance of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and orders of other Revenue Authorities confirming the same stand dismissed.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Misc. Case No. 96 of 1992 under Section 23 of the Act before the Revenue Officer, Puri for cancellation of sale deed dated 2.5.1972 executed in favour of the Appellant by their father without prior permission of the Revenue Officer. The said Misc. Case was allowed by the Revenue Officer vide Judgment and Order Dated 9.5.1983 ( Annexure-1 ) and the sale deed dated 2.5.197...
Tag this Judgment!Chaitanya Behera and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 2009(II)OLR613
I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding opposite party No. 1 to pay them compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the murder of their son by another convict in Choudwar Jail.2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that their son Krushna Chandra Behera having been convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack for commission of offences under Section 498-A/304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in S.T. Case No. 375 of 2000 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 304-B I.P.C., for three years for offence under Section 498-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged in Circle Jail, Choudwar to undergo the sentences. He was residing in Ward No. 19 of the said Jail along with some other convicts including one life convict Pratap Khatei. On 9.6....
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: AIR2010Ori26
Kumari Sanju Panda, J.1. The petitioner, challenging the action of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in rejecting his tender paper for construction of super passage across Salandi Left Main Canal at RD. 8910M of I.A.B.P. under A.I.B.P, for the year 2008-09, has filed this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of: India.2. The facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows:The Executive Engineer, Salandi Canal Division, Bhadrak on behalf of the Governor of Orissa published a Tender Call Notice inviting applications from the eligible class of contractors registered with the State Government for giving their item rate bids for construction of 14 (fourteen) items of works indicated in the said tender. The sale and receipt of the bid documents started from 1-10-2008 and closed on 16-10-2008 at 3.00 p.m. The petitioner being an 'A' Class registered contractor, purchased the tender paper for the item of works against S1. No. 11 in the Tender Call Noti...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Ray Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT729
I. Mahanty, J.1. In the present writ application the Petitioner-Arun Kumar Ray has sought to challenge, an Order Dated 28.9.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 626 of 1998 dismissing the Petitioner's application seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to issue an appointment order in favour to the Petitioner to the post of Field Assistant in the general category.2. Shorn of unnecessary detail as would be evident from the pleadings of this case, the Petitioner had applied in the year 1994 for being considered for appointment to the post of Field Assistant (Gen.) in the Aviation Research Centre (Directorate General of Security), New Delhi. It appears that the Opposite Parties had initiated a selection process for 10 existing and 5 anticipated vacancies of Field Assistant (Gen.) and pursuant to the Petitioner's application all the applicants were interviewed from 23.5.1994 to 27.5.1994. A merit list was prepared for Seven General, 3 SC...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeswar Kanhar Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR577
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Copy of the petition has been served on learned Additional Standing counsel (Vigilance). Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order of cognizance dated 12.10.2007 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), in Vigilance G.R. Case No. 4 of 2005 (T.R. No. 35 of 2007) as well as the summons issued to the petitioner in that case. Grievance of the petitioner is that after investigation, charge-sheet for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and Section 120-B, I.P.C. was never submitted against him because the appointing authority did not accord sanction for his prosecution and only a departmental proceeding was contemplated against him. But without properly perusing the charge-sheet and the connected papers, learned Special Judge (vigilance) took cognizance of the effence against him and also issued summons for his appearance)3. Learned Additional...
Tag this Judgment!Srikanta Pattanaik Vs. Republic of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR758
B.P. Ray, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this revision challenging the judgment and order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1997 confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by Addl. C.J.M. Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. Case No. 8 of 1989 convicting him Under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years Under Section 420, IPC; two years Under Section 468 read with Section 471, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 420, I.P.C. and Rs. 3000/- for the offence Under Section 468 read with Section 471, IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, the accused is to undergo R.I. for three months more on each count.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Akhila Chandra Naik was working as an Accountant in the State Bank of India, Panpos Branch, Rourkela. In absence of Branch Manager, he was also performing the duty of Branch Manager. While the said Akhila Chandra Nayak was wo...
Tag this Judgment!Airport Taxi Drivers Union, Biju Patnaik Airport Vs. Airport Authority ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT725
Sanju Panda, J.1. In this appeal the Appellant has challenged the Order Dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 513 of 2007 arising out of C.S. No. 658 of 2007 whereby the Court below has rejected the application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Appellant.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The Appellant as Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that Defendant No. 4, M/s Swift Travellers, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar was not technically qualified to be awarded with the tender for running the pre-paid taxi counter at Biju Pattnaik Airport, Bhubaneswar and the tender awarded in favour of Defendant No. 4 may be void. In the suit, a further declaration was prayed for that the Plaintiff-Union and its members cannot be evicted by Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 from the taxi stand and pre-paid taxi counter forcibly and or without due process of law. The Plaintiff asserted that Defenda...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »