Orissa Court January 2010 Judgments

Bhunda Mohakud and Another. Vs. State of OrissA.

Court: Orissa

1. In this appeal from jail the appellants seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 05.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in S.T. Case No.20/169 of 1998 convicting them under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.06.1998 P.W.3 appeared before Bahalda police station and reported orally that he used to prepare bricks in the bricks factory of one Ashok Satapathy. His son-in-law Dula Munda, the deceased, also used to work in that bricks factory. Fifteen days prior to the date of occurrence, appellant no.1 had declared before him and others that the deceased would be murdered as he had kept illicit relationship with his (appellant no.1's) wife. On the date of occurrence at about 12.00 noon, Loba Mahakud, the deceased, Kangalu, Tutulu and the informant had been to the house of Ashok Satapathy to bring money for construction of bricks. As Ashok Babu told them ...

Orissa Mining Corporation Limited Vs. State of Orissa

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2010(I)OLR756

S.K. Mishra, J.1. The petitioner, namely Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'OMC'), a Government of Orissa undertakings, has preferred this Revision against the order dated 14.10.2009 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 71 of 2009 (arising out of 2(b) C.C. No. 15 of 2009) of the Court of J.M.F.C, Jajpur Road, wherein the learned Magistrate rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to release 80,000 MTs of seized Chrome ore.2. In short, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioner Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. is a wholly owned company of the Government of Orissa duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at OMC House, Bhubaneswar. It is engaged in the business of mining of different kinds of ores and minerals. Out of various mineral leases, two mineral leases were granted by the State in favour of the petitioner-company in the district of Jajpur, w...

Soubhagya Mohanty Vs. Harekrushna Mohanty and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 109(2010)CLT647

Sanju Panda, J.1. In this writ application, challenge has been made to the Order Dtd 11.11.2009 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), BBSR in Civil Suit No. 595 of 2005 rejecting an application to recall the Plaintiffs' witness for further cross-examination. 2. The facts as narrated in the writ application are as follows: The Plaintiffs who are Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 filed the suit for cancellation of a sale deed, declaration of title, confirmation of possession & permanent injunction with other reliefs. The present Petitioner is Defendant No. 1 & the proforma Opp. Party No. 3 is Defendant No. 2. However, the present Petitioner who is only contesting the suit filed his written statement. In course of hearing of the suit, the evidence of both sides was closed & the suit was posted for argument. At that stage, Defendant No. 1 engaged a new Counsel. After going through the pleadings & the evidence adduced by the parties, the newly engaged Counsel felt it essential that P.W.1...

Mirza Siddik Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 109(2010)CLT653

ORDER1. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner & the Learned Government Advocate for the State-Opp. Parties. By means of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned Order Dated 30.4.1998 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar resuming the land settled in favour of the father of the Petitioner & to restore the said lano the Petitioner. Facts of the case are that Mirza Bhikam, the father of the Petitioner who was in Military service was declared by the Home Department of the State Government eligible for concession of land as per the Home Department Resolution No. 20827/Poll. Dated 7.7.1969. Thereafter he filed a petition for allotment of Govt, land as admissible to Jawans out of Plot No. 329 under khata No. 274 of mouza Alakar. As after enquiry the aforesaid land was found to be of Chotajungle kisam & cannot be considered for settlement, the Petitioner was asked to select another piece of land pursuant to which the Petitioner prayed for allotment of land ...

Chhote Kishan. Vs. State of OrissA.

Court: Orissa

1. The appellant having been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. No.183 of 1993 has preferred this appeal from jail.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.07.1993 the appellant dealt a Falsia blow on the chest of the deceased Mana Kishan causing injury to his vital organs like heart, liver and other parts of the body, as a result of which the died at the spot. The incident took place in presence of the deceased's wife (P.W.1), Sitaram Kishan (P.W.7) and others. On being reported by the deceased's wife Rohini Kishan, the police took up investigation and after its completion submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302, IPC.3. The plea of the appellant is one of complete denial. His specific plea is that on the date of occurrence he had gone to work and returned home at 4.30 PM. On his return, he found somebody had thrown the dead body of the deceased Mana Kishan...

Smt. Subasini Choudhury Vs. Smt. Bisakha Kar and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 110(2010)CLT62

M.M. Das, J.1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Order Dated 15.5.2004 passed in Probate. Misc. Case No. 5 of 2003 by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar.2. The Petitioner in the said Probate Misc. Case is the Appellant before this Court. She filed the said case for probate of a Will Under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act. The case of the Petitioner was that the residential house site over plot No. 3 in Unit-III, Bhubaneswar City having an area of Ac.0.500 decimals belongs to late Rama Chandra Kar, S/o. Late Banchhanidhi Kar of Dargha Bazar, Cuttack. The said Rama Chandra Kar died on 5.3.1996 at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. Before his death, he executed his last Will & testament in favour of the Petitioner on 14.11.1995 in presence of the witnesses. Initially, no Opp. Parties were impleaded in the said Probate Misc. Case. But subsequently, by an order passed by the Learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar on 5.7.1999, one Smt. Bis...

Smt. Aparna Dhir Singh Vs. Debendra Nath Jenamani and Two ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2010(I)OLR508

ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard2. The appellant as plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession along with a relief to set aside the sale deeds executed by her mother and sister in favour of the opp. Parties-defendants, who were the purchasers. An interim application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff for injuncting the purchasers from coming over the suit land. The said application having been rejected, the present appeal has been preferred.3. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff claims exclusive title over the disputed property basing on a Will executed by her deceased father. It is a well known principle of law and also Section 213 of the Indian Hindu Succession Act prescribes that unless the Will is probated, no title accrues favour of the legatee. In the instant case, the claim of the plaintiff is on the basis of a Will as stated above, but the said Will is pending to be probated...

Manoranjan Rout and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 109(2010)CLT225

Sanju Panda, J.1. Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Authorization Committee which was communicated vide letter No. 12210 dated 16.11.2009 as the same violates the direction of this Court dated 30.10.2009 passed in W.P.(C) No. 14344 of 2009.2. Petitioner No. 1, a doctor working as the Chief Medical Officer, Ispat Hospital, Mecon, Ranchi in the district of Jharkhand, is suffering from Renal Failure & being treated at Appolo Hospital, Chennai. The doctor of the Appolo Hospital recommended for Kidney Transplantation as soon as possible & his case was referred for Kidney Transplantation to the Kalinga Hospital (P) Ltd., Chandrashekharpur, Bhubaneswar. The view of the doctors of Kalinga Hospital is that there is no other alternative than to transplant the Kidney to save his life. Therefore, Petitioner No. 1 searched for kidney from his near relatives. As his wife & other family members' blood group did not match, he searched for a kidney from his other relatives & finally P...

Bata Krushna Sahu Vs. State of Orissa

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 109(2010)CLT232

B.K. Patel, J. 1. The Appellant, having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years & to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur by Judgment & order passed in 2(a) C.C. No. 01 of 2004, has preferred this appeal.2. Prosecution case is as follows:On 02.02.2004 P.W. 8 Sub- Inspector of Excise along with P.W.7 Inspector of Excise & other excise personnel were performing patrolling. While at Chhatia Bazar P.W. 8 received reliable information at about 2.00 P.M. to the effect that the Appellant had stored ganja in his house. P.W. 8 reduced the information into writing under Ext. 5, got the veracity of the information verified, & brought Ext. 5 to the notice of P.W. 7. Thereafter, P.W.8, and Ors. proceeded...

Manjubala Pattnaik Vs. Gyanaranjan Behera

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2010(I)OLR524

S.K. Mishra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for opposite party. Perused the records. The case is disposed of at the stage of admission keeping in view the limited nature of prayer made.2. The accused in 1 C.C. No. 222 of 2003 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela has assailed the order passed by the learned trial Court on 17.11.2007 rejecting his prayer under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' for brevity). This is a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity). On 17.11.2007, the accused filed an application before the learned trial Court to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination, in view of the fact that, a disputed document has been enclosed in 1 C.C. No. 67 of 2003, which has been filed by the complainant himself and limited question are to be asked thereon. Learned S.D.J.M., has rejected the petition mainly on two grounds,...