Orissa Court February 2010 Judgments

Pcl-sticco Joint Venture Vs. National Highways Authority of India and ...

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 109(2010)CLT695,2010(I)OLR697

Sanju Panda, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.4.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in Civil Suit No. 91 of 2009 directing the petitioner to pay the balance Court fees under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act (in short, 'the Act').2. The facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows:The petitioner is a Joint Venture between Progressive Constructions Ltd. (in short, 'PCL') having its Head Office at Hyderabad and Administrative Office at New Delhi and Saudi AL-Terais Trading Industries Contracting Co. Ltd. (in short, 'STICCO') with its registered office at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It received a work order from opposite party No. 1 for 'Widening to 4/6 lanes and strengthening of existing 2 lanes carriageway of NH 5 from Km. 284.000 to Km. 338.000 (Ganjam to Sunakhela) in the State of Orissa (Project Chainage from Km. 284.000 to Km. 339.713) Contract Package OR-VII'. Opposite party No. 1 has been entruste...

Union of India (Uoi) Represented Through Its Secretary to Government o ...

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 109(2010)CLT612,2010(I)OLR642

B.K. Patel, J.1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 7.7.2000 passed in O.A. No. 697 of 1998 and order dated 14.08.2001 passed in Review Application No. 22 of 2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short 'the Tribunal'). Opposite Party No. 1 was the applicant before the Tribunal.2. Opposite party No. 1 filed the application for compassionate appointment under rehabilitation scheme on the basis of her claim to be the wife of deceased employee Harish Chandra Behera who died while in service under petitioner No. 3, Director and Commandant, Proof and Experimental Establishment, Chandipur, Balasore on 12.12.1997. Petitioners filed counter to the rejoinder resisting the claim for compassionate appointment under rehabilitation scheme. Petitioners disputed Opposite Party No. 1 's status as the wife of the deceased employee. It was further averred by the petitioners that as per office memorandum dated 26.09.1995 of Ministry of Personnel (P.G.) Pen...

Khageswar Biswal Vs. Brahmananda Biswal and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 109(2010)CLT749

S.K. Mishra, J.1. The most important question that arises in this case for consideration is, whether the Learned Courts below have acted contrary to law in not permitting the Appellant to contest the suit as Khageswar Biswal, as according to him, he has been wrongly described as Khageswar Behera in the plaint.2. The Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to the effect that Defendant No. 1 described as Khageswar Behera, son of late Narendra Behera of Gobanga is the adopted son of said Narendra Behera & has no right, title or interest in the property left by late Dinabandhu Biswal. For better appreciation of the case, the Genealogy is reproduced below:I-Genealogy Dinabandhu Biswal-------------------------------------------------------------| | | |Parameswar Maheswar Khageswar Achutananda Brahmananda W-Manika (Adopted) W-Suka|--------------------------------------Rabi Kabi Chhabi Gandu Panchu II-GenealogyAnanda Behera-------------------------| |Narendra GangadharW-Pitei Saria-----------...

Sk. Akhtarul Islam Vs. D.i. of Police. and anr.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 109(2010)CLT692

A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Petitioner is a poor man, belonging to the down trodden class of the society. He is neither litigation minded nor litigation is his hobby, but then, circumstances have compelled him to enter into litigation, which he is constrained to pursue willy-nilly. He has approached the portals of this Court being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the Opp. Parties, who have disqualified him in course of the selection for the post of constable in General Railway Police, Cuttack.2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in response to an advertisement issued in daily news paper inviting applications from eligible candidates, the Petitioner applied in prescribed proforma for the post of constable on 18.8.2008 After due scrutiny of the application form & on being satisfied that the Petitioner satisfies all the eligibility criteria, his application was accepted & he was called upon to appear at the physical test on 1.9.2008. After the physical test, the Opp. Parties w...

Garbapu VenkatiramanA. Vs. State of OrissA.

Court: Orissa

1. Appellant Garbapu Venkatiramana and two others (Garbapu Prasad and Garbapu Ramulu) were facing trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Sessions Case No.51 of 1997 (Original S.C. No. 158 of 1997 of the Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore) being charged under Sections 302/324/34, IPC. By the judgment and order dated 11.06.1998, the learned trial Judge while acquitting Garbapu Prasad and Garbapu Ramulu of the charge, convicted the appellant under Sections 302/324, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, IPC, but did not impose any separate sentence for the offence under section 324, IPC.2. Case of the prosecution is that on 10.3.1997 at about 8.00 P.M. Garabapu Elemma, the daughter of Garabapu Ramulu (co-accused since acquitted) was shaking the supporting wire of the electric pole situated in the locality. In course of shaking, there was sparking in the live wire of the electric line. P.W.2, the informant (wife...

D.T.M. Construction (India) Ltd. Vs. Capt. P.K. Srivastava and anr.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: AIR2011Ori61; 109(2010)CLT623,2010(I)OLR647

Sanju Panda, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.1.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in ARBP Case No. 56 of 2010 returning the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to present the same in a proper Court at Mumbai. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is a construction Company which deals in projects relating to construction and dredging. Opposite party No. 1 is a proprietor concern which deals in hiring of dredger and its accessories by procuring margin. Opposite party No. 2 is a Company which used to let out dredgers. The Irrigation Department of the Government of Orissa issued a work-order in favour of the petitioner for dredging and distillation in the rivers connected with Chilika Lagoon in the district of Puri to protect the same. Hence, the petitioner-D.T.M. Construction (India) Ltd. approached opposite part...

Biju Patnaik University of Technology, Orissa, RourkelA. Vs. Sairam Co ...

Court: Orissa

1. In this writ appeal, challenge has been made to the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1771 of 2009.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Sairam College represented through its Chairman filed W.P.(C) No.1771 of 2009 before this Court with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing Biju Patnaik University of Technology (in short, "BPUT") to issue degree certificates to 67 students of the College, who had already appeared in the University Examinations within a reasonable period and to act in terms of the decision of All India Council for Technical Education (in shor, "AICTE") for One Time Approval in respect of the said students. Sairam College was earlier affiliated to Kalinga University of Chhatisgarh. The aforesaid 67 students were prosecuting their studies in B. Tech (Bio Technology) from the session 2003 onwards. In the year 2005, the apex Court in the case of Professor Yaspal & another V. State of Chhatisgarh & others...

Smruti Ranjan Parida Vs. Taramani Das and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2010(I)OLR431

S.C. Parija, J.1. This appeal by the owner of the vehicle (insured) is directed against the judgment/award dated 22.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Bhadrak, in MAC No. 54 of 2005, holding the owner-appellant to have violated the policy condition and is therefore liable to indemnify the loss and accordingly directing the insurer to pay the compensation amount, with the right to recover the same from the owner.2. Learned Counsel for the owner-appellant submitted that as the offending vehicle is a Auto-rickshaw Delivery Van and the driver had a driving licence, authorising him to drive a Auto-rickshaw, the said driving licence was valid and effective at the time of the accident and therefore, there was no violation of policy condition. In this regard, it was submitted that as the evidence on affidavit filed by the owner-appellant clearly revealed that the offending Auto-rickshaw had a unladen weight of 470 kgs. and the driver Prasanta Muduli had a valid driving li...

Nityananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and anr.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: AIR2010Ori87,109(2010)CLT632,2010(I)OLR638

S.C. Parija, J.1. The decision of the State Government in the Law Department not to renew the Notarial Certificate of Practice of the petitioner, with effect from 16.7.1998, is under challenge in the present writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner, as detailed in the writ petition, is that he enrolled as an advocate under the State Bar Council in the year 1972 and started practice at Baripada. On completing more than ten years of active practice as an advocate, the petitioner made an application in the prescribed form accompanied by requisite fees, for being appointed as a Notary. The State Government appointed the petitioner as a Notary, for a period of three years, with effect from 16.7.1983, as per the Notarial Certificate of Practice dated 16.7.1983 (Annexure-1). The said Notarial Certificate of Practice was renewed from time to time, authorising the petitioner to practice as a Notary.3. In the year 1998, the petitioner applied for renewal of his Notarial Certificate of Practic...

Siva Dutta Sharma Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2010(I)OLR706

ORDERS.K. Mishra, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate and learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 on 4th February. The case was then posted to today for further argument on points of law only. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner filed a memo to the effect that the petitioner wants to withdraw Crl. Misc. Case as not pressed seeking liberty of this Court to raise all the grounds before the Court below at the time of framing of charge. Hence, he prays that the Crl. Misc. Case may be accordingly disposed of as not pressed. Copy of the Memo has not been served on the learned Addl. Government Advocate nor on the learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2. It is further seen that while disposing of the Special Leave Petition No. 6110 of 2008, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has requested this Court to dispose of this Criminal Misc. Case as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of passing of...