Orissa Court September 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.
Sarat Kumar Kar Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR891
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the jurisdiction of the State Government in appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 to enquire into the affairs of the Orissa Legislative Assembly and to quash the order dated 10.1.2007 passed by the Commission of Enquiry by which it has ordered that the point of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner shall be decided in its final, report.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, namely, Sri Sarat Kumar Kar, who was a legislator for few terms, was elected as the Speaker of the 12th Assembly. During his tenure, some appointments in the Assembly Secretariat and purchase of computers were made. There were statutory rules for appointment of staff. As Speaker of the 12th Assembly, the petitioner appointed a Selection Committee as per rules which made the appointments.2. The Hon'ble Speaker of the 13th Assembly being aware of the adverse media publicity and to get t...
State of Orissa and Kumari Kuntala Sethi Vs. Sridhar Ghose and 11 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(I)OLR209
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard and the judgment is as follows:The order of acquittal granted in favour of twelve accused persons in the judgment-dated 16.05.1988 of learned Sessons Judge, Balasore.Camp at Bhadrak in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1988 is under challenge both by the State in the Government Appeal and by the informant in the Criminal Revision. After analogous hearing of both the matters, this common judgment is delivered to abide the result in both the cases.2. The factual backdrop, which not in dispute between the parties and also noted in the impugned judgment, is that there was political and social rivalry between the prosecution party members and the accused persons. The occurrence of assault, which was the subject matter of trial, occurred at 9.00 P.M. on 04.09.1987. Statement of the informant in the present case,, i.e., P.W.1-Kumari Kuntala Sethi is that several persons including the present twelve accused persons forming unlawful assembly attacked Tauli Sethi (P.W.2), his so...
Dr. (Mrs.) Manjurani Routray Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR951
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 148 of 2001 disposed of on 4th May, 2005.The case of the petitioner is that she at the time of filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal was working as Principal System Analyst (Scientist 'D'.) In terms of the promotion policy laid down by the opposite parties which is otherwise called 'Flexible Complementing Scheme', she was eligible for promotion to the post of Scientist 'E' in the rank of Technical Officer/Director on completion of four years of service as Scientist 'D'/Principal System Analyst. Her case for promotion to the post of Scientist 'E' having not been considered by the Selection Committee in the years 2000 and 2001, she approached the Tribunal alleging therein that even though she had the highest qualification amongst all the officials working as Scientist 'D' from Orissa State Unit of National Informatics Centre (in short 'NIC'),...
Krushna Chandra Sahoo Vs. Bank of India and 2 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Ori35; 106(2008)CLT713
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed raising large number of issues including factual controversy pointing out that the documents with the bank are not genuine and signature of the Petitioner purported to have been made on the same are forged. However, at the time of submission Mr. P. Acharya, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner restricted the case that the notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the 'Act') has been issued without meeting the requirement of Section 13(3-A) of the Act read with Rule 3-A of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter called the 'Rules').2. The facts necessary for determining the controversy involved herein are that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served upon the Petitioner on 13.2.2008 (Annex. 1).The Petitioner submitted his objection through his Counsel Shri N. Pati on 7.3.2008 taking several ob...
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Khus Jahan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)OLR63
ORDERS.C. Parija, J.1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the appeal.Heard.The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.MACA No. 1055 of 2005This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 06.09.2005 passed by the 4th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jharsuguda, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 18 of 2004, awarding an amount of Rs. 1,72,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant case, as the truck was standing immobile, at the time of the alleged accident, no compensation could have been awarded, inasmuch as, the death of the deceased did not arise out of the use of the motor vehicle. In this regard, it is submitted that under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal can only entertain an application for compensation filed under Section 166 of the said Act prov...
Manoj and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(I)OLR632
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Leave granted.2. Manoj and Bijendra Singh - two brothers have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 631/2000 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior whereby and where under the conviction of Manoj-appellant No. 1 herein recorded by Special Judge (NDPS) and Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 161/99 under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] has been altered to Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, whereas conviction of Bijendra Singh-appellant No. 2 herein (as also accused No. 2-Ram Avtar) from Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC has been converted to Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant No. 2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, whereas Ram Avatar has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The conviction of appellant No. 1 under Section ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. M. Rama Rao and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT625
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. Tine South Eastern Railway authorities have sought to challenge the Judgment dated 26th December, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. Nos.1076-1085 of 2002, whereby, the Tribunal has pleased to direct the Petitioners to publish the panel of selected candidates (those who took the test at Rayagada) and to provide them employment/engagement in order to remove the discrimination to such of the selected candidates.2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.5.1996 issued by the Petitioners was to recruit 737 casual labourers in Waltair Division of South Eastern Railway and applications were invited for the following regions:1. Waltair (Track Spl.) - 672. Vizianagaram - 1003. Srikakulam - 2004. Rayagada - 1005. Arukulam - 1006. Koraput - 707. Jagadalpur - 308. Kirandul - 70_______________________Total - 737It is also an admitted case between the parties that selection took place at various regions named above but surprising...
Mahammed Saud and ors. Vs. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Ori46; 2008(II)OLR725:AIR2009Orissa46
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment of August 6, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 386 of 2007 is assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal. In the FAO an order of September 9, 2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, FTC-Ill, Bhubaneswar in Interim Application No. 12 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 498 of 2004 appointing a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'CPC) was assailed.2. The question of maintainability of the LPA against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court was raised in course of hearing of the LPA. It was pointed out at the Bar that there had been two sets of directly conflicting judgments of Division Benches of this Court, inasmuch as in the case of V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patl and Anr. 2006 (II) OLR 349, a Division Bench had taken the view that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in view of amendment of Section 100-A CPC against the judgment/order of a learned Single Judge...
Roy and Company Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-2008
Reported in: 107(2009)CLT122; 2008(II)OLR911
B.P. Das, J.1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of purchase of manganese ore from G.P. No. 5- M/s. Bhanja Minerals Pvt. Ltd., which has been granted two Mining Leases under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (MMRD Act, in short) for iron and manganese ore in village Inganijharan and iron ore in village Deojhar, both in the district of Keonjhar, and is engaged in the business of mining of iron and manganese ore.The petitioner-company through its Partner-Biplab Roy has filed this writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the Notification dated 15.1.2004 issued by the Government of Orissa in the Department of Steel and Mines, vide Annexure-2, declaring the Policy Decisions on grant of mining lease and transfer of land for commercial projects in Scheduled Areas, 2003, more particularly Clause 8 (e) thereof and praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the said Notification i...
Miss. Dalimba Kumari Panda Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)OLR163
I. Mahanty, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner namely, Miss Dalimba Panda has sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 2.8.2003 under Annexure-6 by which the Director, Rehabilitation & Resettlement of the Government of Orissa Water Resources Department rejected the petitioner's application for grant of rehabilitation assistance as a displaced person and consequentially prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation/rehabilitation and resettlement benefit.2. The case of the petitioner is that she is an unmarried, old, sick and infirm lady and was residing in a house constructed by her late father Radhakrushna Panda over Plot No. 223, Khata No. 40 at village Landiguda, District-Koraput. The petitioner asserted that in the year 1984 Landiguda was submerged due to construction of the Upper Kolab Reservoir Project and notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published. It is further asserted that although various representations we...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »