Orissa Court November 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.
Smt. Puspalata Parida Vs. the Block Development Officer-cum-election O ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-10-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT785
ORDERR.N. Biswal, J.1. Even though the case was listed to date for admission, on consent & request of Learned Counsel for both the sides, it was taken up for final disposal & the following order was passed.2. The Petitioner, Smt. Sansari Samal (Opp. Party No. 2) & one Bilasini Parida contested for the office of Sarpanch of Nagiaposi Gram Panchayat. On 16.1.2007 during scrutiny of the nomination papers, Bilasini Parida raised objection before the Election Officer that Smt. Sansari Samal did not know reading & writing oriya & that she put her signature with much difficulty, still then her candidature was accepted & she got elected as Sarpanch of the aforesaid G.P. The Petitioner secured the 2nd highest votes. She filed Election Petition No. 37 of 2007 challenging the validity of the election of Opp. Party No. 2 before the Civil Judge (J.D.) Dhenkanal. After perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties & hearing their Counsel, Learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Dhenkanal vide Order Dated 12.3.2...
Shree Ranisati Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. Gayatri Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-10-2009
Reported in: 109(2010)CLT145
ORDERB.K. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-employer, Opp. Parties 1 to 3 claimants & Opp. Party No. 4 ESI Corporation are present.2. Heard3. In this writ application the Petitioner has assailed the Order Dated 14.7.2008 Annexure-4 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in W.C. Case No. 137-D/2005 rejecting Petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Section 151 C.P.C to set aside exparte Judgment dated 12.2.2008.4. The impugned order reads as follows:xxx xxx xxxAdvocate for the applicant as well as O.P. No. 1 are present. Advocate for the applicant filed written objection to the petition dated 9.6.2008 filed by O.P. No. 1. Heard. After careful consideration of the petition as well as objection, I am not inclined to accept the petition dt.9.6.08 since the Judgment has already been passed as per order dt.12.2.08. Further, I have no jurisdiction to consider the same. Hence rejected. Direct the O.P. No. 1...
Sri Sanjib Kishore Dash Vs. Secretary to Govt. of Orissa, Health and F ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(II)OLR995
S.K. Mishra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.3.2003 in O.A. No. 2350 of 1999 and the subsequent order dated 3.8.2005 in M.P. No. 479 of 2003 dated 3.8.2005 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.2. The case of the petitioner is that the State Public Health Laboratory had one vacancy of Junior Laboratory Assistant in the year 1996. The appointment authority, i.e., Deputy Director-cum-Public Analyst (O.P. No. 2) after taking approval of the opposite party No. 1 invited applications from the outsiders for the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant indicating that the candidates aged not below 18 years and above 32 years as on 1.1.1996, having prescribed qualification, i.e., I.Sc. Or +2 Science may offer for the same. The advertisement was published in the daily newspaper 'The Samaj' on 17.2.1996. The applicant applied for the said post and was called for the interview on 20.3.1997. It is stated that the petitioner has passed HSC, +2 Science and Bachel...
Ranjan Kumari Singh Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Reported in: 2010(I)OLR149
L.K. Mishra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.02.2004 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No. 188 of 2000 and the decree sealed and signed on 08.03.2004 by which he dismissed the suit filed by the present appellant.2. The case of the appellant in the Court below was that she and respondent Santosh Kumar Singh were co-workers and were known to each other. As their intimacy developed, they fell in love and ultimately the respondent proposed to marry the appellant. The appellant agreed to such proposal and on 21.03.1999 marriage between them was solemnized at Dumerta Kali temple at Bondamunda with observance of all rituals and ceremonies as befitting a Hindu Marriage in presence of G. Naidu and the father of the appellant. Soon thereafter both the parties consummated their marriage in the quarter of the respondent at Bondamunda but on the next day the appellant was sent to her parent's house by the respondent who promised to take h...
Rajeswari Mishra Vs. Sidhartha Pandit
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Ori41
L.K. Mishra, J.1. The wife-appellant has challenged the judgment of the Judge, Family Court dated 21 -9-2001 in Civil Proceeding No. 85 of 1998 by which he annulled the marriage of the parties under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. Sidhartha Pandit, the husband (the respondent herein) filed the petition for annulment of the marriage on the ground that at the time of marriage the wife was suffering from recurrent attacks of epilepsy. The marriage of the parties took place on 5-2-1998 according to the Hindu rites and customs. On 13-1-1998 at about 3.00 A. M. the husband woke up and found the wife having an epileptic attack. She had lost her sense and was salivating. One Dr. Bankim Patnaik, who was neighbour of the husband was called and on examination found the wife to be suffering from severe attack of epilepsy. He prescribed medicines and also advised to consult a Neurologist. On the next day morning on enquiry she disclosed that she was subjected to intermittent attack of...
Hemalata Sahu Vs. Sugyani Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Ori35
L.K. Mishra, J.1. This appeal is directed against order dated 10-8-2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2004 (arising out of Execution Case No. 6 of 2003) of the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack by which he dismissed the aforesaid Misc. Case.2. The factual backdrop is as follows:Smt. Sugyani Sahu (respondent herein) obtained a decree of maintenance against her husband-Rabi Narayan Sahu under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for a sum of Rs. 1,200/- (Rupees Twelve Hundred only) per month which was made payable from 7-4-1998. She levied the execution being Execution Proceeding No. 6 of 2003 for realization of maintenance. In the said proceeding order of attachment of immovable property to the extent of the share of judgment debtor was passed on 26-9-2003. The present appellant Hemalata Sahu being the mother of Rabinarayan Sahu filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 58, C. P. C. to dismiss the Civil Proceeding No. 136 of 1998 on the ground that the decree h...
Suresh Mehera and Four ors. Vs. Subha Chaulia and 21 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(II)OLR984
ORDERS.C. Parija, J.1. Heard Shri S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the opposite parties 1 and 2 in spite of notice.2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sonepur, in FDTS No. 31 of 2001, rejecting the petitioners' application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for being impleaded as parties to the suit.3. The petitioners filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the learned Civil Judge in the final decree proceeding registered as FDTS No. 31 of 2001 praying for being impleaded as parties to the suit. The case of the petitioners was that they have purchased part of the suit land from Padmabati Mishra-defendant No. 20, which was admitted by the plaintiffs. After sale of the suit land in favour of the present petitioners, the said defendant No. 20 having no further interest in the suit land, did not appear in the suit and was set ex parte, the petitioners who are bona fide pur...
Subash Chandra Das Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-2009
Reported in: 2010(I)OLR127
ORDER1. Petitioner is working as Asst. Director of Seri-Ciilture. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him with regard to certain alleged overt acts said to have been committed by him while he was continuing as Asst. Director, Sericulture, Mayurbhanj. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued and charges were framed in consonance with Rule 15 of the O.C.S. (CCA.) Rules 1962. The petitioner showed cause. The authorities being satisfied that a prima facie case is made out appointed Manoj Kumar Ahuja, I.A.S., the Director of Textiles, as the Enquiring Officer. Thereafter the departmental proceedings continued and the Enquiring Officer on the basis of the materials produced before him gave preliminary report. The petitioner was directed to file his show cause.2. The grievance of the petitioner was that without serving the enquiry report and other relevant documents, the petitioner was compelled to file his show cause. With the said grievance, he approached the State Administr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›