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.
Adarsh Palace Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Somanath Dwibedi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT74
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order Dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12844 of 2008 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the Judgment and order of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated 14.08.2008 passed in CM.A. No. 23 of 2008 (arising out of C.S. No. 47 of 2008) rejecting the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 under Order 11, Rule 1, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'the C.P.C.').2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Respondent No. 1 filed a suit being C.S. No. 47 of 2008 in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. seeking interim relief. During the pendency of the said application, Respondent No. 1 filed another application under Order 11, Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking leave to delive...
Deepak Trading Company Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)23VST476(Orissa)
B.P. Ray, J.1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the action of opposite party No. 1 in issuing notice for termination of agreement with the petitioner and placing the indent and selecting the opposite party No. 3 to supply soya chunks for Bolangir district under Mid-Day Meal Programme (hereinafter called 'MDM Programme') on the ground that the same is illegal and arbitrary.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short fact which gives rise to this writ petition is that the State Government had launched the MDM Programme for the school children throughout the State. This programme is being carried out under the control and supervision of Women and Child Development Department (opposite party No. 2). Under the MDM Scheme, the Government decided for supply of eggs for school children and for that purpose the guidelines were fixed wherein it, inter alia, stated that the Collector of respective districts would purchase eggs. Under the said programme, it was furthe...
Nila Dei Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: 109(2010)CLT126
I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned Order Dated 16.10.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 872 of 1996 directing that in case the Respondents decide to engage casual labourers for Koraput-Rayagada Railway Line, then the applicant's son whose case has been duly recommended should be given preferential treatment more so because out of 200 posts which were to be thrown open to land oustees, 12 posts are yet to be filled up. However, the Tribunal in the impugned order has held that as the Petitioner has not approached the Tribunal for the last ten years, the claim for providing employment to her son is not maintainable as it is not a vested right, which can be enforced at any time in future. In view of this, the Tribunal has held that the application of the Petitioner is without any merit.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner belongs Scheduled Tribe & her land to the extent of Ac.9....
Smt. Jambu Sethi and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-02-2009
Reported in: 107(2009)CLT635
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. By means of this Writ Petition the Petitioners have prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the compensation of Rs. 90,500 to each of them with interest accrued thereon from the date of entitlement in the interest of justice.2. At the very out set it is necessary to mention here that a memo has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners on 30.10.2008 stating that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have already got their compensation and, therefore, the Writ Petition in respect of those Petitioners is not pressed. So far as Petitioner Nos. 4 to 7 namely. Kumari Dukhi Nayak Daughter of Abhi Nayak, Sri Banamali Pradhan, Son of Jaya Pradhan, Kumari Puspanjali Naik, D/o Bijaya Naik and Kumari Namita Naik, daughter of Kasia Naik are concerned, it is stated in the memo, that they were minors at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and are entitled to compensation at the rate the ...
Purna Chandra Behera Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-02-2009
Reported in: 107(2009)CLT770
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned Judgment and Order Dated 20th August, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 109 of 2000 dismissing the Original Application filed by him.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Caste community was directly recruited to the UDC cadre of SBCO in the Central Government in the Department of Posts and joined the post on 30th May, 1983, as per D.G.(Post), New Delhi letter No. 51-5/71-SPB-1 dated 18.7.1971. According to the said letter, directly recruited UDC's are required to pass the confirmation examination. Those who fall to pass the confirmation examination in three chances within a period of four years from the date of regular appointment may be offered the lower post of LDC, if they are willing; otherwise they may be discharged from service.3. The Petitioner appeared in two tests held in the year 1984 and 1986, but failed. In the year 1987, he was g...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›