Orissa Court April 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.
Bhagaban Behera and 2 ors. Vs. Central Institute of Fresh Water Aqua-c ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(II)OLR148
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4.8.2006 passed by the Tahasildar, Pipli in Revenue Misc. Case No. 1 of 2006. Opposite party No. 1 - Institute has been put to possession by the State of Orissa over petitioners' land. Grievance of the petitioners is that they have been dispossessed illegally without following the procedure prescribed by law and the said dispossession is in violation of the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Land had been taken away from then without initiating the acquisition proceedings. Thus, they are entitled for restoration of possession of the land. Alternatively they should be paid compensation.2. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1 institute has submitted that the Institute is not concerned with the original ownership. The land has been handed over to it by the State of Orissa and there was an agreement between opposite party No. 1 and the State of Orissa for providing free land to establi...
Bijay Ketan Brahma and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT657
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The prayer made in this writ application is to quash Order Dated 7th December, 1983 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Appeal Case No. 49 of 1983 (Annexure-4) as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement dated 12th January, 1996 passed in Consolidation Revision No. KR- 89/93 (Annexure-5). The Deputy Director in his order (Annexure-4) had directed to record the disputed pond under 'Sarbasadharana Khata'. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner, Consolidation in Annexure-5.2. The dispute is in relation to a tank commonly known as 'Dopati Pokhari' appertaining to Sabik Plot No. 2721 in Sabik Khata No. 50 having an area of Ac.0.54 dec. corresponding to Hal Plot No. 3702 with an area of Ac.0.47 dec. situated in village Garedipanchan & was classified as 'Jalasaya-II'. ,3. The record of rights published in the year 1928 reveals that the aforesaid tank was recorded in the name of Lord Jagannath Bije, Puri under the marfet of...
Bandhu Baxia Vs. State of Orissa and 4 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT85
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. The case has a checkered history as the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court through the 'Rourkela Local Displaced Association' & had challenged the land acquisition proceeding. The said petition was dismissed. The Association approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court & the Apex Court made certain observations on the basis of which the present petition has been filed.2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the 'Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced persons (Land Acquisition Act) Act, 1948' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the grounds that the provisions providing for acquisition of land under the said Act had been violative of the provisions of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India and after amendment of the Constitution of Articles 31A and 300A of the Constitution of India and as a consequence, seeking declaration that any acquis...
Gobinda Chandra Sahoo and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT96
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in dispute, i.e. an area measuring Ac.0.130 decimals, plot No. 798(p) in Khata No. 112 in mouza Bhoinagar wherein the notification under Section 4 read With Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued on 27.6.1985 also in respect of a very large area of land for having a lake to beautify the city.. Declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 19.11.1985.2. In paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition it has been stated that notice under Section 9 had been issued on 25.4.1987 and the notices for award under Section 11 were issued on 8.2.1995 and 9.2.1995. The Petitioners claim to have purchased the land in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 12.10.1999. Petitioners raised construction on the said land without getting the plan sanctioned from the Bhubaneswar De...
Sri Pawan Kumar Dhanuka Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3549; 2009(II)OLR81
Sanju Panda, J.1. In this habeas corpus petition challenge has been made to the order of detention dated 25.11.2008 passed by the District Magistrate & Collector, Bargarh, opposite party No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The brief facts giving rise to this habeas corpus petition are that during surprise check on 28.8.2008 at 11.30 P.M. in the premises of the petitioner i.e. M/s. Pooja Industries at village Kadalimunda within Barpalli P.S. in the district of Bargarh it was found that kerosene was being converted by chemical process to look like diesel. Two oil tankers were parked inside the industries. In one tanker, 8920 litres of blue dyed kerosene and in the other, about 12120 litres of blue dyed kerosene were uploaded to the processing plant. Regarding the said fact, an FIR was registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance Department and the investig...
Limala Kamudu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT117
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order Dated 25.03.1989 passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi in S.T. Case No. 2 of 1989/S.T. Case No. 135 of 1988 GDC convicting the Appellant under Section 376, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years.2. Case of the prosecution is that on the night of 23.06.1988, Misala Parama @ Parbati (P.W.1) was sleeping on the outer verandah of the house of P.W.2. At about 12.00 P.M., accused came to that place, removed her clothings & forcibly cohabited with her. P.W.1 raised hullah, hearing which P.W.2 woke up and saw the accused fleeing away from the spot. Next morning, P.W.1 went to the house of the Sarpanch and told him about the incident. The Sarpanch called the accused, but he did not respond. The Sarpanch advised P.W.1 to report the matter to the police. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged FIR before Kasinagar P.S., on receipt of which the case was registered and investigat...
Pramod Behera and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Endowments and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT169
M.M. Das, J.1. The Petitioners, who are some of the Hindu public of the locality of Telenga Bazar in the millennium city of Cuttack, which is the cultural heart-throb of the State, have called in question the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments constituting a non-hereditary Trust Board for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the said order to administer the affairs of the centuries old monumental temple of Shri Raghunath Jew Bije, Telenga Bazar built by the Marahata Kings during their reign in this State.2. A Scheme Order was passed under Sections 38 and 39 of the Old Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 (for short, 'the Old Act') on 03.10.1951. Section 38 of the said Act, which continued to exist in the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act') was omitted by Orissa Act 18 of 1954. However, under Section 79 of the New Act, which provides Repeal and effect of repeal was Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939, t...
Raja Roy and ors. Vs. Dolly Roy and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: 108(2009)CLT656
1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties & this common Judgment would abide the result in both the cases.2. Raja Roy is the husband, Dolly Roy @ Ray is the wife & Rasmita Roy is their nine years old child. Marriage between the spouses solemnized on 26.11.1995 entered into rough weather about a year after their marriage. Both the parties entered into litigating terms, for which several civil proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, criminal proceedings for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. & also criminal prosecution for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. were instituted at the behest of the respective parties. Refusal of the Family Court, Rourkela to grant maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in Criminal Proceeding No. 64 of 1997 were set aside by a Division Bench of this Court while hearing Matrimonial Appeal No. 5 of 1999 & Criminal Revision No. 257 of 1999 analogously. This Court allowed maintenance @ Rs. 1,500 (fifteen hundred) to the wife & daughter of Raja Roy,...
Rajarishi Exports Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: (2010)28VST87(Orissa)
I. Mahanty, J.1. In the writ application the petitioner, M/s. Rajarishi Exports Ltd., has sought to challenge the order dated January 29, 1994 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack III, Jaipur Road rejecting the petitioner's application for refund on the ground that the purchase made by the petitioner from M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (in short, 'TISCO') on payment of tax cannot be treated as sale in the course of export and as such it is not exempted from tax.2. Mr. Ray, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had entered into a contract with a foreign buyer, namely, M/s. Nissho Ihsai Company of Tokyo, for sale of 50,000 M. T. of high grade Indian chrome ore. It is further submitted that pursuant to the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the foreign buyer, the petitioner also entered into a contract with TISCO for purchase of high grade chrome ore and in obtaining the said material from TISCO, the petitioner suppl...
Dolly Roy Vs. Raja Roy
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Ori1
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the evidence on record and the impugned judgment of the Court below and our judgment is as follows:2. Judgment and decree passed on 7-10-2005 in Civil Proceeding No. 201 of 2003 by the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela is under challenge. Though the provision, under which the application for decree of divorce was filed, is under Section 13(l-A)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act'), but in the application filed by the husband and also while noting the provision in the impugned judgment the trial Court has committed several errors. However, we ignore the said error with a direction to the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela to correct it accordingly.3. Respondent-Raja Roy is the husband and the appellant-Dolly Roy is the wife. On 26-11-1995 they married and became husband and wife. Out of their wedlock they were blessed with a daughter namely Rashmita. About a year after their marriage misunderstanding surfaced between the partie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »