Orissa Court October 2009 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.
Subash Chandra Panda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-2009
Reported in: 2009(II)OLR946
C.R. Dash, J.1. The short point that arises in this revision is as to whether the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) has power to release the vehicle seized by the police on the allegation of transporting 'Ganja' weighing 14 Kg. 30 grams in the interim zima of the petitioner, who is admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle in question especially in view of the provisions for confiscation of such vehicle under Section 60(3) of the Act.2. Chapter 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'The Code' for short) deals with disposal of properties by creating a trichotomy in the sense that competent criminal Court has been empowered to deal with the question at different stages and provisions to that effect have been enacted in Section 451, Section 452 and Section 457 of the Code. Section 451 of the Code deals with interim custody of the seized property and the question of d...
Bajaranglal Lacha Vs. Maniklal Bhattar and 2 ors. and Shyam Sundar Bha ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(II)OLR980
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard Mr. P.R. Barik learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This Second Appeal has been filed against the confirming judgment in a suit filed by the respondents 1, 2 and 3. The suit was filed for evicting the appellant from the disputed shop room, where the appellant was admittedly a tenant.3. Two questions are raised by Mr. Barik, as substantial questions of law, one being that the notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was not a valid notice and the second being that the shop room in question is the joint property of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants, where the plaintiffs have claimed exclusive title to the said shop room. On the question with regard to the validity of notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act, Mr. Barik submits that as the notice was given under the said Section 106 prior to its amendment in the year 2003, the learned Courts below have acted contrary to law in relying upon the amended provisions of Section 106 of the T.P. Act. Further, since ...
Md. Noorullah Shareef Vs. Senior Post Master, General Post Office (Gpo ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-2009
Reported in: 2010(I)OLR42
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In this Civil Revision, the petitioner challenges the judgment dated 17.12.2004 of the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (FTC-I), Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No. 119 of 2002 reversing the order dated 02.09.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1st Court, Cuttack rejecting an application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. registered as Misc. Case No. 152 of 2000.2. The brief fact of the case is that one Ashrafun Nisha Begum and her husband Md. Abdullah Shariff on 17.12.1984 had purchased jointly 16 numbers of National Savings Certificates amounting to Rs. 80,000/ from the opposite party. They had made their sons, namely, Md. Nurullah Shariff and Md, Rahimtullah Shariff as nominees'. After the death of Md. Abdullah Shariff on 06.01.1988, Rahimtullah Shariff tried to encash the NSCs without the consent of Ashrafun Nisha Begum in collusion with the opposite party. As such, Ashrafun Nisha Begum filed T.S. No. 364 of 1989 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) ...
Purna Chandra Biswal Vs. Kanhu @ Sudhansu Sekhar Mohapatra and Three o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(II)OLR892
ORDERIndrajit Mahanty, J.1. Heard Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Panda on behalf of Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the private opposite parties.2. Challenge has been made in the present revision to an order dated 7.7.2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc A.S.J., Balasore in S.T. No. 31 of 2008/94 of 2008 whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was pleased to direct to discharge the accused-petitioners under Section 227, Cr.P.C.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assails this order, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned order was passed in the absence of any counsel appearing for the State and hence the prosecution has gone un-represented.4. Pursuant to order dated 11.9.2009 the petitioner father along with his daughter, namely, Sabita (the alleged victim) with her child as well as O.P.-1 Kanhu @ Sudhansu Sekhar Mohapatra are present in Court in persons.5. It appears that although attempts for settlement were made between the parties,...
Jitendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(II)OLR901
ORDERC.R. Dash, J.1. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the defects pointed out have already been removed.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays to take up the case for admission. Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government has no objection. The matter is, therefore, taken up for admission and final disposal.3. Order dated 18.8.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir on a petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. filed by the present petitioner is impugned in this Revision.4. It has been held by this Court in the case of K. Nageswar Senapati v. K.C. Panda and Ors. 79(1995) CLT 25 that an order passed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and is not revisable. In view of such fact the present Revision is not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that without attaching importance to the nomenclature of the petition to be one under Section 401 Cr.P.C, the order impugned can be revised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or he may be given libert...
Prafulla Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Anem Bhengra @ Munda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-28-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT821; 2009(II)OLR902
S.K. Mishra, J.1. The matter is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.2. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter referred as 'the Code', for brevity, wherein the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have called in question, the legality of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.). Rourkela in Civil Suit No. 29 of 2007 refusing the prayer of the defendants to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code on the ground of gross under valuation of the suit.3. The simple facts giving rise to this revision application are that the opp.party No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 29 of 2007 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rourkela seeking the declaration that he and defendant Nos. 3,4, & 5 are the real owners of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession and to declare the Sale Deed No. 26362 dated 12.6.2007 in favour of the defendant No. 2 to be null and void. It is undisputed at the stage that the sale deed in...
Ram Prit Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-28-2009
Reported in: 109(2010)CLT152; 2010(I)OLR51
B.K. Patel, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner assails the legality of order of minor penalty of withholding one increment of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority under Annexure-3 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-3 and by the Revisional Authority under Annexure-7.2. Petitioner is a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the rank of Head Constable posted at TTPS, Talcher. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the following charge under Annexure-3:CISF No. 801390049 HC/GD R.P. Singh of CISF Unit NTPC/TTPS Talcher was detailed from 2100 hrs on 17.07.2007 to 0500 hrs on 18.07.2007 at Watch Tower No. 5/Broken wall PTL with walkie-talkie set, Sl/Exe. P.C. Patnaik shift in-charge while after asking the situation report of the duty post over walkie talkie, passed instruction to HC/GD R.P. Singh to remain in contact with the sentry of debris-yard by blowing whistle. ...
Chintamani Sahu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(II)OLR959
ORDERL.K. Mishra, J.1. Order dated 22.05.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 170 of 2005 by which he rejected the prayer of the petitioner (who is the accused therein) under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here-in-after called 'the Code') for further cross-examination of P.W.1 and cross-examination of P.W.2, 3 and 5 is impugned in this application. The learned advocate for the petitioner declined to cross-examine PWs 2, 3 and 5. He also allegedly could not cross-examine P.W.1 effectively. Therefore, the aforementioned petition was filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner inter alia delineating the specific questions to be put to P.W.1 in further cross-examination.2. Heard from both sides. Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that further cross-examination of P.W.1 is necessary and P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 have not at all been cross-examined. This being a Sessions Case involving offence under Section 302 I.P.C., if the witnesses...
State of Orissa Vs. Agasti Kumar Sahoo and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-2009
Reported in: 2010(I)OLR80
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard and on consent of the parties, the Suo Motu Criminal Revision is disposed of at the stage of admission in the following manner.2. A report was submitted on 21.04.2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput intimating the Court that opposite party No. 1 toeing the then S.D.J.M., Nabarangpur tried and disposed of G.R. Case No. 332 of 2008 when cognizance of the offence under Section 304, I.P.C. was taken by him, but he undertook the trial for the offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C. and convicted the accused (the other opposite party) for the said offence. On perusal of the report and the L.C.R., this Court being prima facie satisfied about the assertions of the Sessions Judge regarding the misconduct of the S.D.J.M. and also about illegality in the trial, issued notice to both the opposite parties. So far as it relates to the Judicial Officer, he was asked to show cause for the alleged misconduct and illegality, whereas the accused-opposite party was asked to sh...
Rupa Santa and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(II)OLR957
ORDERL.K. Mishra, J.1. The petitioners are accused persons in G.R. Case No. 296 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore involving offence under Sections 379 of the I.P.C.2. Heard learned Counsel from both sides on the question of bail. Perused the certified copy of the F.I.R. and the order of the learned Court below by which he rejected the bail application of the petitioners.3. Bail is prayed for on the ground that the stolen articles have been recovered, the case is triable by a Magistrate and petitioners are in jail for more than 5 months.4. Order of the learned Court below dated 15.07.2009 passed in B.A. No. 332 of 2009 is quoted in extenso:15.07.2009 This is a petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the accused persons for bail in G.R. Case No. 296/09 on the file of the S.D.J.M., Jeypore.2. Petitioners allegedly committed offence under Section 379 I.P.C.3. Heard, Solar Light-set set up in the temple of Sri Sri Sri Gupteswar has been taken away and reco...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »