Orissa Court August 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.
Aarasada Surya Mouli Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR646
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. The petitioner-Arasada Surya Mouli, in this writ application, has sought to challenge the order dated 12.7.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No. 558 of 1995 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed his challenge to the order dated 2.9.1995 passed under Rule-6 of the E.D.A. (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 terminating the services of the petitioner as an EDD Agent of Rayagada Head Post Office just after expiry of one and half months from the date of issue of Notice to that effect.2. The petitioner had worked under the Postal Department as an ED Mail Escort in the Bus route from Rayagada to Jeypore for about nine years from 1.8.1976. It appears that a post of EDD Agent fell vacant in Rayagada Head Post Office and the name of the petitioner along with five others were recommended by the Employment Exchange for the said post. On verification of necessary documents, the petitioner was selected for the post and he joined as such on 30.4.1994....
Shakti Bricks Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ545; 2008(II)OLR690
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Shakti Bricks, represented by its Proprietor Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, has filed this writ application seeking a direction to the District Administration as well as the police authorities to provide protection to the life and property of the petitioner who claims to threatened by the private opposite parties 5 and 6 who are allegedly restraining them from carrying on their business activity and trade.2. In course of proceeding, certain intervenors either supporting the petitioner intervened and they were impleaded as opposite parties 7 and 8.3. The main grounds of challenge as narrated in this writ application are:(a) The freedom of carrying on occupation, trade and business is one of the Fundamental Rights of a citizen of this country provided under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's industry which has been lawfully registered and is supposed to carry on his business but then only because he could not satisfy the...
Santosh Bangola Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR846
B.K. Patel, J.1. By the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 51/4 of 1999-2000 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir while upholding the judgment and order of conviction of the petitioner under Section 47(f) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (for short 'the Act') by the learned S.D.J.M., Patnagarh in 2(a) C.C. No. 75 of 1997, modified and reduced the sentence imposed to undergo R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month.2. Prosecution was lodged against the petitioner on the allegation that on 16.7.1997 P.W.3 S.I. of Excise in presence of P.W.2 A.S.I. of Excise and P.W.1 an independent witness raided the house of the petitioner and recovered two earthen pots each containing ten liters of F.M. wash as well as one earthen pot, one earthen still pot, one bamboo pipe and an empty glass smelling liquor, which articles were seized under seizure list Ext. 1.3. Ple...
Parikhita Das Vs. Commissioner Consolidation and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR385
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.2. In this writ application, the petitioner calls in question the order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack in R.P. No. 315 of 2003, whereunder the said Commissioner, while dealing with the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, (for short, 'the Act') rejected the said Revision Petition on the ground of limitation.Section 15(b) of the Survey and Settlement Act is as follows:15. Revision by Board of Revenue- The Board of Revenue may in any case direct--(a) xxx xxx xxx(b) on application made within one year from the date of final publication under Section 12-B the revision of record-of-rights or any portion thereof whether within the said period of one year or thereafter but not so as to affect any order passed by a Civil Court under Section 42:Provided that no such direction shall be made until reasonabl...
Dr. Bhuban Mohan Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR674
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner, who is a doctor at present working as the Director of Swami Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation Training and Research, Olatpur, has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the F.I.R. under Annexure-1.3. The F.I.R. was lodged by Md. Anmul Haque and Ors. at 12.25 P.M. on 24.4.2008, which was registered as Govindapur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2008. In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that in order to ventilate their grievances with regard to their basic problems of providing drinking water, difficulty in the residence and, more particularly, visibility of their rooms to others when they change clothes, in the afternoon of 23.4.2008, along with Dr. Sanjay Das, they went to the office of the Director. The Director was in a drunken stage and said that 'you are not good children, you are enjoying outside talking with boys for long period, you...
Satyam Construction Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT652; (2008)17VST42(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. All these petitions have been filed by the petitioner, Satyam Construction, a proprietary concern. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 9032 of 2008 challenges the order of assessment dated May 9, 2007 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-1, West Circle, Cuttack (for short, 'the STO') under Section 42 of the Orissa Sales'Tax Act for the tax period from April 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006 vide annexure A and the demand notice of even date (annexure 2) on the ground that the action of the STO in passing the impugned assessment order and issuing the demand notice is without jurisdiction.2. In W.P. (C) No. 15401 of 2005, W.P. (C) Nos. 10337 and 10338 of 2006 and W.P. (C) No. 10578 of 2006, the common grievance of the petitioner is that even though he is a dealer registered under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') bearing TIN No. 21251203437 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 bearing registration No. CUICW-2678, the border ch...
Mariam Bibi and ors. Vs. Pradeep Alias Pradipta Kishore Mohanty and or ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT658
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Defendants in Title Suit No. 123/71 of 1991/1989 of the Court of then Munsif, 2nd Court, Cuttack have filed this Second Appeal against the confirming Judgment and decree dated 15-12-1993 and 23-12-1993 respectively passed by the Addl. District Judge, Cuttack in Title Appeal No. 48 of 1992.2. Original Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed the aforesaid Title Suit before the Munsif, 2nd Court, Cuttack praying for declaration that they had acquired right of easement by grant, prescription and by easement of necessity over the suit schedule land and for mandatory injunction for removal of obstruction existing on 'A' schedule property, and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from obstructing their (Plaintiffs) right of easement over the said land.3. According to the Plaintiffs, they had purchased 'B' schedule land from Defendant No. 3 Fakir Khan and Defendant No. 4 Mehrun Bibi on 23rd April, 1964 by a registered sale deed. On the same day. It was averred in ...
Sabitri Mishra Vs. Purna Chandra Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR763
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No. 450 of 2002.2. Appellant, as plaintiff, filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against the present respondent. The case of the plaintiff in essence, is that the defendant is the owner of the property described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint and he entered into an agreement with her (plaintiff) for sale of that property as he was in dire need of money for the treatment of his wife, who was suffering from cancer. The plaintiff pleaded that in that negotiation the sale price of the suit property was fixed at Rs. 6 lakhs out of which the defendant received an advance consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs on 15.1.2000. Agreeing that he would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of two years after receiving the remaining consideration money of ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Ahalya Prusti and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Ori68
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, a 1987 (for short, 'the Act') has been filed by the appellant/respondents against the award of a statutory compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- passed on 16-8-1996 in O.A. No. 102 of 1995 under Section 13(i)(a)(ii) read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, on the allegation that respective husband and father (one individual) of the claimants while travelling in the train as bona fide passenger (206 Down Bhadrak-Kharagpur local train) died on 19-12-1990 when the train involved in an accident at Sabira Railway Station.2. Upon condoning the delay in filing the original application and also upon perusal of the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants the Tribunal originally had divergent opinion between the members and ultimately the case of the claimants was upheld and compensation was awarded when the matter was subsequently referred to a 3rd judicial member of Secundarabad Bench.I h...
Rabinarayan Sahu Vs. Forest Range Officer of Soroda Range and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT482; 2008CriLJ4271
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. The Petitioner-Rabinarayan Sahu in this writ application has sought to challenge an order of confiscation dated 19.4.2007 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-District Forest Officer, Southern Division, Ghumusar, Bhanjanagar (O.P.3) as well as the Judgment dated 24.9.2007 delivered by the Learned District Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in F.A.O. No. 18 of 2007 confirming the aforesaid order of confiscation of the Petitioner's Tractor baring Registration No. OR-07-K 9335 along with a trolley bearing Registration No. OR-07-K 9336.2. The main contention advanced by Mr. Das, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the confiscation proceeding as well as the Appellate order stand vitiated since the statutory enquiry contemplated under Rule-4 of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980 (in short '1980 Rules') has not been complied with. Rule 4 of Orissa Forest (D.E.D. of F.O.) Rules, 1980 reads as follows:4. Enqui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »