Orissa Court August 2008 Judgments
Amulya Kumar Jena Vs. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(I)OLR259
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This review is directed against the judgment dated 25.3.2003 passed by this Court in 2003 (Supp.) OLR 359 I O.J.C 13052 of 1997 dismissing the writ application filed by the review-petitioner.2. The petitioner in the writ application had challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority pursuant to a departmental proceeding initiated against him imposing penalty of reduction of basic pay by three stages and treating the period of suspension as such. It was contended in the writ application that out of twenty charges framed against the petitioner, only six were found to have been partially proved by the Enquiry Officer and three more charges were found to be partially approved by the disciplinary authority. On the above basis, it was further contended that charges cannot be divided into separate parts and the question of partial proof of any charge does not arise. It was also the case of the petitioner that he was kept in dark about the portion of the charges s...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Anjan Pentho Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Ori10
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. Both the appeals against the High Court Order have been filed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 12-9-2000, by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the two appeals which were filed challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in view of the fact that the appellant-insurance company has not fulfilled the requirement as provided under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The questions arise as to whether the appeal on behalf of the insurer, who has not taken permission as required under Section 170 of the Act, under Section 173 is maintainable.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the accident occurred on 4-5-1997 at Korapalli junction as a consequence of which one Surendra Petho Behera had died because of injuries caused by the offending vehicle. His widow, parents and sister filed two applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanta Kumar Mallick, Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR684
ORDERL.K. Mishra, J.1. These four bail applications under Sections 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Cr.P.C) arise out of the same case i.e. Nuagaon P.S. Case No. 18 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 192 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur, wherein charge sheets have already been submitted against the petitioner and Ors. under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 325, 307, 379, 427, 364 read with 149 of the I.P.C. and under Section 9(b) of the I.E. Act. Therefore, these cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Saroj Kumar Barik and the victim lady Manasi Dash had married out of love in a temple. The informant Saroj belongs to a lower caste and therefore, father of Manasi namely Alekh Dash did not approve of their marriage. After marriage the couple stayed in the house of Saroj. It is alleged that during the intervening night of 8/9.3.20...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Margaret Palai and anr. Vs. Smt. Savitri Palai and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT911
Sanju Panda, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment & decree dated 21.12.1992 & 6.1.1993 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Chatrapur in Title Suit No. 76 of 1990 dismissing the suit.2. Plaintiff No. 1 is the Appellant. She filed the suit for partition of the suit property along with mesne profits & costs. Plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3 are her daughters. During pendency of the suit, Plaintiff No. 3 died. Therefore, her name was deleted.3. The case of Plaintiff No. 1 in a nutshell is that she married' to one Debendra Polai in the year 1973 as per Hindu customs & adjusted herself in the Hindu customs of the family. Oebendra died on 17.5. 1987. The suit schedule lands are joint family properties of Debendra & his brother. After death of Debendra, she became helpless & demanded partition of her husband's share but all her attempts became fruitless. During settlement operation, all the properties were recorded in the name of Defendant No. 2 giving an impression that Debendra died un...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sumati Mishra and anr. Vs. Basantimani Pati and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT907
Sanju Panda, J.1. Challenging the Order Dated 16.9.2002 passed by the Learned District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, at Balasore in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1998 arising out of Misc. (probate) Case No. 11 of 1988 rejecting the prayer for revocation & annulment of the ex parte order of probate granted by it on 23.7.1992.2. The facts, as narrated in the memorandum of appeal, are as follows:Respondent No. 3 being a minor represented through his father Respondent No. 2 filed Probate Misc. Case No. 11 (P) of 1988 before the District Judge, Balasore under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 11.4.1988 executed by one Sabitri Mishra wife of Harinarayan Mishra. Sabitri is the mother of the present Appellants & Respondents 1 & 2. In other wards, the present Appellants & Respondent Nos. 1 are three daughters & Respondent No. 2 is the son of said Sabitri. In the said probate proceeding, the present Appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Jasobant Narayan Mohapatra and Two ors. Vs. State of Orissa and Two or ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1043; 2008(II)OLR661
B.K. Patel, J.1. This revision is .directed against that part of the impugned order dated 22.06.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R. No. 95 of 2007 by which charge for commission of offences under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short 'P.C. Act') and under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C') has been framed against the petitioners. By the impugned order charge for commission of offences under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) of the P.C. Act and Section 201 of the I.P.C. also has been framed against co-accused Nrusingha Charan Rath.2. Brief facts of the case relevant for this revision are as follows:On the written report of complainant-decoy Ananta Kumar Padhi alleging demand for bribe of Rs. 100/- by co-accused Nrusingha Charan Rath, who was working as A.S.I, of Police, Aradi Out post under Dhusuri Police Station, Balasore, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 1998 was registered on 03.05.1998. The bribe was stated to be demande...
Tag this Judgment!Subrat Kumar Naik Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ538
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.12.2007 (Annexure-1) by which the petitioner has been detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for a period of one year.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that the petitioner is facing trial in five criminal cases namely, (i) Colliery P.S. Case No. 152 dt. 22.8.2002, (ii) Parjang P.S. Case No. 9 dt. 19.1.2004, (iii) Colliery P.S.Case No. 136 dt. 11.7.2007, (iv) Colliery P.S. Case No. 198 dt. 19.9.2007 and (v) Talcher P.S. Case No. 211 dt. 24.11.2007. In four cases he has been enlarged on bail by the competent court. Petitioner moved bail application and the court asked the Government counsel to produce the case diary and other relevant documents for further consideration of his bail application. It is at that juncture the order impugned has been passed. Petitioner submitted two representations through the Superintendent, Sub...
Tag this Judgment!M. Vinita and ors. Vs. Council of Higher Secondary Education
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR622
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard Mr. Nayak, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the opp.parties.2. The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the action of the opp.parties in not declaring the result of Annual +2 Science Examination, 2008 conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education (in short, 'the CHSE') on the ground that the students of the Kantabanji Vocational College, Kantabanji, who are the wards and children of the petitioners, adopted mass malpractice. The petitioners having sought for issuance of a direction to the C.H.S.E. to declare the result of their wards and children upon quashing the notification under Annexure-1.3. The case of the petitioners is that their wards and children appeared in the above examination and though they faired well in all the papers including Chemistry and Mathematics, but the said two papers have been illegally cancelled on the basis of vague and baseless grounds and '00' marks have been awarded to all the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Temburu Ramesh and anr. Vs. Collector, Gajapati and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT884; 2008(II)OLR812
Sanju Panda, J.1. In this writ petition challenge has been made to the order dated 19th November, 1994 passed by the Collector, Gajapati in Regulation Appeal No. 1 of 1990 dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellants and their successors-in-interest were found to be in unauthorized occupation of the schedule land and directing the Tahasildar to evict them from the disputed land and restore the possession to the present opposite party No. 3 who is the successor-in-interest of the recorded land holder under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation 1956').2. The facts of the case are as follows:The disputed property measuring an area of Ac.2.320 decs. is situated in Plot No. 413 under Khata No. 13 in mouza Padmapur under Parlakhemundi P.S. in the district of Gajapati. Trinath Samal, the present opposite party No. 3, filed RMC No. 66 of 1988 for restoration of the disputed land to hi...
Tag this Judgment!Parsuram Mohapatra Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT878; 2008(II)OLR754
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.1.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 681 of 1993 dismissing the O.A. filed against the impugned order of punishment of withholding of next three increments of the petitioner raising his pay from Rs. 20007 to Rs. 2040/- for a period of three years without cumulative effect from the date when it would otherwise be due to him but the period of punishment shall not operate to postpone future increments on the expiry of the period of punishment.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Grade-B Guard under Khurda Road Division of the South Eastern Railways with headquarters at Cuttack. A memo of charge dated 9.9.1993 was received by him on 20.9.1993. On the same date he submitted an application requesting for supply of the copies of the documents containing materials in support of the charges. His case was that he was not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »