Orissa Court March 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.
Dhruba Charan Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT65; 2009(I)OLR953
S.C. Parija, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2008 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, in G.I.A. Case No. 81 of 2008, rejecting the application of the appellant for non-fulfilment of the mandatory requirement of law regarding service of statutory notice.2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant had moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 8475 of 2001, challenging the order of recovery from his salary. This Court by order dated 18.02.2008 disposed of the writ application by passing the following order:We dispose of the writ petition as withdrawn and observe that within two weeks if the petitioner files application under Section 24-B of the Act together with applications under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and waiver of statutory notice, then learned Education Tribunal may do well to consider such interim applications liberally in view of the fact that the writ petition was filed on 05.07...
Maheshwar Padhi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2742
B.K. Patel, J.1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in S.C. No. 191 of 2000 convicting for ten years under Section 307 of the I.P.C.2. Prosecution case in brief is as follows:In the night of 17/18-8-1999 at about 12.10 a.m. the P.I.C. Badabazar P.S. received an anonymous telephone call regarding assault on a rickshaw puller at Diamond Tank Road. He entered the information in the station diary book under S.D.E. No. 342, dated 18-8-1999. Being directed by him, P.W.3 the Sub-Inspector of Police along with P.W.4 the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.5 the Havildar, P.W.6 the Police Constable and other police officials proceeded to the spot where the injured P.W. 1 was found lying with injuries on his person and blood stains on his wearing apparels in front of Satyasai temple on a rickshaw. On enquiry it was ascertained that he was assaulted at about 12.00 in the mid night by an unknown person...
Prafulla Behera Vs. Commissioner-cum-secretary, School and Mass Educat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT44
M.M. Das, J.1. The Petitioner in this Writ Petition has called in question Clause-2.3 of the advertisement under Annexure-5 and paragraph4.C of the admission brochure so far as it relates to admitting untrained graduate teachers working against the posts other than Trained Graduate Teachers of all types of High Schools and teachers of Elementary Schools to B.Ed. Course as in-service candidates.2. For appreciating the contentions raised by the respective parties, it would be profitable to quote paragraph-4.C of the Information Brochure, 2008-09 for admission to one year B.Ed. Course as well as Clause 2.3 of the advertisement issued pursuant to the said brochure. Paragraph 4-C of the Information Brochure reads as follows:4. Eligibility for Admission:(A) xx xx(B) xx xx(C) In-service candidates:Untrained teachers appointed on regular basis against sanctioned yardstick posts in Government/Government Aided/Recognized High Schools are eligible to apply provided she/he must have been Science/A...
Siddhartha Sen and anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4078
ORDERIndrajit Mahanty, J.1. The above noted batch of twenty Criminal Misc. Cases have been filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge the registration of 2(C)CC case Nos. 366 to 385 of 2001 before the Court of the learned A. C. J. M. (Spl.), Cuttack under Sections 159, 162 and 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 and also seeks to challenge the consequential summons issued to the petitioners apart from seeking to challenge the order dated 25-9-2001 taking cognizance in the aforesaid cases.2. Mr. Bijay Ku. Mahanti, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that filing of the aforesaid complaint cases and the order dated 25-9-2001 taking cognizance against the petitioners is hopelessly barred by limitation. In the present case, complaints have been lodged for infraction of Sections 159, 162 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. Whereas Section 159 mandates filing of annual return within 60 days from the day on which Annual General Body Meeting was held, Section 162 stipu...
M.M. Enterprisers Vs. Sachikant Routray and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-2009
Reported in: 109(2010)CLT118
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator has been filed on 18.12.2007.2. The fact & circumstances giving rise to the case are that Petitioner is a proprietorship firm & deals in the business of coal transportation by loading coal from Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. at Talcher & supplying the same at various places. Opposite Party No. 2 entered into an agreement dated 26.9.2002 (Annex-1) with the Petitioner-applicant showing himself to be the representative of Petitioner No. 1-M/s. M.M. Enterprisers for purchase of coal from the Petitioner. The agreement also contained an Arbitration Clause. The said clause is set out below:Clause (h). That in case of default by the second party in making payment to the first party & in case of default by the first party in supplying the coal to the second party or for any dispute arising thereof, the matter shall be referred to t...
Miloo Mishra @ Mohapatra Vs. Apun Kumar Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Ori136; 2009(I)OLR786
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. I have heard Mr. Anupam Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioner-wife and Mr. Bhabani Shankar Das Parida, learned Counsel for the O.P.-husband,2. Both the husband and wife have filed application for divorce on mutual consent. The husband is living in USA and the wife is living in India. All the formalities have been admitted and followed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Nowhere it is stated in the impugned order that the statutory formalities had not been adhered to. Such non-adherence is also not a ground for impugned order. Only ground in which the impugned order is passed is that as envisaged under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court has to hear the parties and for which hearing the trial Court wanted the presence of both the parties in Court. True it is that Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in its proviso (2) provides that on the consent of both the parties, the Court shall on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and af...
Surya News Print and Papers Private Limited and ors. Vs. Branch Manage ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(II)OLR226
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.2.2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT') directing the petitioner to make deposit of 25% of the claim amount by 31.3.2009 for the purpose of entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioners before the DRAT for disposal on merit.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed two applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack and those applications were registered as M.A. No. 566 of 2008 and M.A. No. 567 of 2008. In those applications prayer was made for a declaration that the DRT has no jurisdiction to hear the pending O.A. No. 187 of 2008 and further praying for reference of the dispute for arbitration. Since the DRT, Cuttack Bench rejected the said applications by order dated 20.1.2009 the present petitioner had filed an appeal before the DRAT, Kolkata and the same was registered as Ap...
Manas Ranjan Das Vs. State of Orissa and Three ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(I)OLR792
1. Though this matter was listed today for orders, with consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, the same was taken up for final disposal.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal, who is also present in Court.4. Perused the record supplied by the State Counsel. It is evident from the record, that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 30,0007-for the Sairat, i.e.. Bhapur Road Metal Quarry No. 111, for the year 2008-09, but an agreement has been executed allotting the said sairat in favour of the petitioner from 16.12.2008 to 31.03.2009, i.e. for a period of three and half months. Now, Tahasildar, Dhenkanal submits that the aforesaid sairat has already been put to auction and the highest bidder has offered a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-.5. In our considered opinion, as the petitioner has entered into an agreement for the period as aforesaid, the Provisions of Rule-36 of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004...
Orissa Bridge and Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Surendra Chandra D ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-25-2009
Reported in: 107(2009)CLT840
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed for quashing the Order Dated 15.9.2000 passed by the Learned Single -Judge in OJC No. 4992 of 2000 affirming the Judgment and award dated, 16.7.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Jeypore, by which the Writ Petition filed by the present Appellant against the award of reinstatement and 25% back wages had been dismissed.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that the Respondent-employee made a claim that he worked on D.L.R. basis continuously from 11.11.1986 to 1.10.1994 and he was not allowed to work thereafter, rather his services were terminated without compliance of the statutory requirements contained in the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Act, 1947. The Appellant employer contested the claim by filing written statement denying the allegations made therein and it was suggested therein tha...
Sri Saradakanta Panda Vs. Poonam Padhi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-25-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Ori145; 2009(I)OLR949
1. Heard further argument and the judgment is as follows.2. The appellant has filed Civil Proceeding No. 228 of 2005 in the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack claiming the relief under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act). Respondent is the opposite party in that proceeding. Admittedly, they are related as husband and wife.3. A fall out in the matrimonial relationship while both the parties were in the United States of America brought them back to Orissa and admittedly appellant belongs to Cuttack and that is the matrimonial home of the respondent. As per the averments in the application under Section 13 of the Act, both the parties resided together for two days at matrimonial house at Cuttack after returning from America and accordingly, the husband filed the application under Section 13 of the Act in the Family Court. In course of pendency of the proceeding, the off suit relating to interim maintenance, litigation expenses etc. were contested between ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »