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.
Salkhan Murmu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 109(2010)CLT124
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28.6.2005 passed in O.A. No. 350 of 2004 by which the Petitioner's claim for regularization/absorption has been rejected, but certain relief has been granted in view of the letter dated 18.6.1979 & Circular dated 30.12.1999 for inclusion of his name in the waiting list for one year & to renew thereafter as per the rules laid down for this purpose.2. The facts & circumstances of the case giving rise to the case are that Petitioner initially was appointed provisionally to the post of Extra Departmental Packer/MC, OSAP Campus, S.O. Bhubaneswar for a period from 12.4.1999 to 30.9.1999 or till regular appointments was made whichever period was shorter. The appointment letter dated 18.9.1999 further clarified that appointment could be terminated when regular appointment was made & he would have no claim for appointment to any post. It was also made clear that Petitioner w...
Shree Gopal Krishna Gosala Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 107(2009)CLT629; [2009(121)FLR974]
Sanju Panda, J.1. The Petitioner is a charitable society which was formed in the year 1936-37 as 'Victoriya Gorakhyani Sabha, Cuttack' by Marwari Community of Cuttack and registered under the Societies-Registration Act, 1880. Subsequently, the said name was changed to 'Shree Gopal Krishna Gosala' in the year 1971 -72. The object of the Society is to preserve and protect the blind, old, diseased and disabled cows including heifer bullocks and bulls and to maintain them till their death. The Society also rescued the cattle from the butchers. The Petitioner collected charity subscriptions and donations from the general public for its day to day maintenance. It has also owned some land for raising grass and fodder and tank for supply of water to the cattle and for keeping the cattle the Petitioner engaged persons who are being paid monthly or on daily wage basis, The Petitioner has also provided accommodation to the persons who are getting remuneration monthly. They are also using cow-dung...
Ajit Kumar Dutta Vs. Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Orissa and an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT136
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order of punishment dated 23.8.2006 (Annex.-1) imposing punishment of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect, which has been subsequently reduced to withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect by the Appellate authority by Order Dated 18.1.2008 (Annex.-2).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner while working as Personal Assistant of the Orissa High Court, Cuttack was served with a charge sheet in Disciplinary Proceeding No. 1 of 2005 (Annex.- 3). Following charges were drawn up against him.Whereas you while working as P.A. to Hon'ble Shri Justice R.N. Biswal were neither sincere in coming to Court in time nor co- operating in Court's work and were taking frequent leave.As apparent from your past conduct, you have been warned time and again for such type of lapses.3. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the said charges and subsequently ...
Shree Mahabir Rice and Flour Mills Vs. State Pollution Control Board a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-07-2009
Reported in: 108(2008)CLT121; 2009(I)OLR946
B.P. Das, J. (Chairman)1. This appeal filed under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short 'Water Act') is directed against the direction issued by the State Pollution Control Board, Orissa, (hereinafter called 'the Board') under Section 33-A of the Water Act as well as under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 ('Air Act' in short), vide letter No. 17410/IND-l-CON-1023 dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure-8) for closure and shifting of the appellant rice mill, namely, Shree Mahabir Rice & Flour Mills, at Rengali in the district of Sambalpur, to a suitable location sufficiently away from the residential area as the unit Is causing severe water and air pollution in the surrounding area and has thus violated the provisions of the Water Act as well as the Air Act. The appellant has also filed an appeal under the Air Act challenging the direction for closure of the unit.2. While admitting the appeal, this Authority by its ord...
The Controller of Examinations, Council of Higher Secondary Education ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 107(2009)CLT887; 2009(I)OLR799
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.11.2008 by which the writ Petition filed by the respondent No. 1 against cancellation of the result of her examination making the allegation of mass copy has been allowed.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that challenging the cancellation of examination in Chemistry Paper of +2 Science Annual Examination of 2008 in respect of the students of P.S.H.S. School, Danra, the writ petition was filed. The allegation of the petitioner/respondent No. 1 was that her result along with other students had not been declared in Chemistry Paper though there had been no complaint by the Flying Squad and without issuing any notice to her. In the result published on 25.7.2008, the petitioner/respondent No. 1 and other students were shown to have failed. From the mark sheets supplied to them it was reflected that they were awarded 'O' mark in the Chemistry Theory Paper, though the...
Krishna Singh Vs. the Branch Manager, Sbi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 107(2009)CLT754
Sanju Panda, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against the Order Dated 26.3.1996 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talcher in Misc. Case No. 178 of 1992 arising out of Execution Case No. 2 of 1988.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The Petitioner is Judgment-debtor No. 3 in Money Suit No. 15 of 1986 filed by Opposite Party No. 1-Bank for recovery of Rs. 1,70,447.69 ps. from Opposite Party No. 2. Said Opposite Party No. 2 applied for a Mid Term Loan to purchase a second-hand truck of 1975 Model. The Bank granted such loan and executed an agreement on 25.11.1980 for Mid; Term Loan with hypothecation of the vehicle. The present Petitioner is one of the guarantors in the said agreement As the loanee failed to re-pay the loan amount, the Bank filed the suit in the year 1986 for recovery of the same. The loanee and the other guarantor were set ex parte. The present Petitioner filed his written statement stating therein that his signature in the agreement was ...
Chhatia Palei and anr. Vs. Additional District Judge-cum-sessions Judg ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT52; 2009(I)OLR983
I. Mahanty, J.1. The petitioner in the present writ application has sought to challenge the Order dated 31.3.1998 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in C.R. No. 36/11 of 1997 allowing the said revision and reversing the order dated 23.12.1996 passed in M.J.C. and No. 30/1996 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of Execution Proceeding No. 3 of 1994 by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nayagarh who had allowed the objection of the petitioner under Section 47 C.P.C. and hold that the decree passed in O.S. No. 24 of 77, was in executable.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order passed by the Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Nayagarh on the following grounds:(A) That the Execution Case is barred by limitation as envisaged under Article 136 of the Limitation Act.(B) That the decree sought to be executed being purely for injunction, the relief of recovery of possession is beyond the scope of the executing Court....
Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Jyushnamayee Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT146
ORDER1. Heard.2. Respondent No. 5 - General Manager, East-Coast Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda argues to enforce the statutory right of the Respondent as provided in Section 50 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the act') and claims for remand of M.J.C. No. 42 of 1997 of the Court of the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhawanipatna with an opportunity to Respondent No. 5 to adduce evidence on valuation for minimizing and reducing the award. In that respect Respondent No. 5 relies on the case of N.T.P.C. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2004) 12 Scc 96.3. Dr. Rath, Learned Counsel appearing for claimant-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on the other hand differentiate the ratio in the case of N.T.P.C. (supra) on the ground that NTPC had filed the appeal challenging the award but in this case Respondent No. 5 has not preferred appeal against the impugned award. He relies on the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and A...
Kabuli Mohanta Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(I)OLR804
ORDERI. Mahanty, J.1. Heard Mr. Smruti Ranjan Parija, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.2. In the present revision, challenge has been made to an order dated 29.10.2008 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jajpur in G.R. Case No. 29 of 2008 whereby the Board has been pleased to reject the petitioner's application under Rule-13(7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (in short '2007 Rules') on the ground that the offence under Section 379 IPC for which the petitioner has been charged, appears to be 'serious' offence and the ends of justice requires rejection of the same. Rule-13(7) of 2007 Rules is quoted herein below:13- Post-production processes by the Board:XX XX XX XX(7) In all other cases except where the nature of alleged offence is serious, delay beyond four to six months shall lead to the termination of the proceedings.3. Mr. Parija submits that though un...
Manoranjan Parida Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal and 5 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT78
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Judgment and order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter called 'the DRT) passing an ex parte Judgment and Order Dated 18.08.2005 in O.A. No. 54 of 2001 against the present Petitioner and rejecting his applications for recalling the ex parte order and condonation of delay vide Judgment and Order Dated 28.02.2008 in M.A. Nos. 27 and 28 of 2008.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner stood guarantor (though stated before this Court first time that his signatures had been forged by the borrower) and as loanee did not make the payment, the Opposite Party-Bank i.e. Union Bank of India initiated the proceedings for recovery. Petitioner claims that he had not been served any notice nor aware of the proceedings and finally ex parte Judgment and order had been passed against him on 18.08.2005. Subsequent thereto, when the notice was published on 8.8.2007 i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »