Court : Orissa
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.8.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. Case No.15 of 1982 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short, "the Code") arising out of Misc. Appeal No.42 of 1982, an appeal under the Orissa Pubic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short, "the OPP Act").2. The facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows: Opposite party no.1 as respondent no.2 in Misc. Appeal No.42 of 1981 filed an application under Section 151 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 10.9.1981 passed in the said appeal and prayed for hearing of the appeal as he would be highly prejudiced.From the record, it appears that the disputed land was acquired by the State Government under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of quarters for the staff and officers of the High Court of Orissa. After due notification under Sections 6 and 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhadrak in Civil Revision Petition No.13 of 2005 dismissing the revision which was filed challenging the order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in Misc. Case No.93 of 1996 rejecting an application filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The judgment debtor nos.1, 3 and 4 who are the sons of defendant no.1 in Title Suit No.136 of 1976 filed an application under Section 47 read with Section 151 and Order 32 Rules-3, 3(A), 4, 7(2) read with Sections 10 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Code raising a question that defendant nos.16 to 19 who are judgment-debtor nos.21 to 24 are family deities of the parties. From the order dated 26.7.1985 of the final decree proceeding, it appears that the deities refused to receive the summons. In the suit, 'Ga' Schedule properties were allotted to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. The petitioner who is the complainant has filed this revision against the order dated 24.2.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore- Bhadrak, Balasore in Criminal Revision No.78 of 1994 setting aside the order dated 6.10.1994 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore in ICC Case No.180 of 1994 taking cognizance against the present opposite party no.1-accused.2. It appears from the record that the son of the complainant-complaint was involved in a criminal case. During investigation of the said criminal case, the present opposite party no.1 who was a Police Officer posted at Baliapal Police Station called the complainant to the police station and assaulted him. Being aggrieved by the said action of the said opposite party no.1, the petitioner filed ICC Case No.180 of 1994 before the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore. Learned S.D.J.M. recorded the initial statement of the complainant and also another witness examined by the complainant who corroborated the statement of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. The petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the legality of the decision of O.P.1-Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore in appointing opposite party no.3 as Transporting Agent under Mid-Day-Meal Programme in respect of Soro Block under Balasore District for the financial year 2010-11 pursuant to Tender Call Notice under Annexure-1, communicated by O.P.2-District Social Welfare Officer, Balasore in his letter No.1541 (6)/SW dated 22.06.2010 vide Annexure-3.2. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the Tender Call Notice dated 28.5.2010 issued by the Collector for engagement of transporting agent in Block Level for transportation of food stuffs under the Mid-Day-Meal Programme for different Blocks in Balasore District for the year 2010-11, vide Annexure-1, the petitioner submitted her tender with all required documents for Soro Block quoting the rate of transportation a Rs.10.00 per quintal.3. It is an admitted fact that the rate quoted by the petitioner was the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. This second appeal has been preferred under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants 1, 3 and 5 in T. S. No. 70 of 1991 against a confirming judgment. The aforesaid suit was filed by the respondents as plaintiffs seeking a decree for partition of the schedule 'A' properties claiming half share therein. By the time, the suit was filed, the defendant no. 2 Bhagirathi Das was a minor aged about 12 years and was represented by his father guardian, defendant no.1. The facts admitted by the parties are that the suit schedule 'A' properties is ancestral properties of the family of the parties.2. The plaintiffs' case is that as per the genealogy given in the consolidated plaint, Akura was the common ancestor, who had two sons, namely, Panu and Mani. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of Mani and defendant no. 5 is his widow. The plaintiffs are three married daughters of Panu. The plaintiffs claimed that the schedule 'A' property measuring Ac.13.23 decimals comprises the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. The petitioner assails the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Baripada in F.A.O. No. 54/20 of 2009 confirming the order of dismissal passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada in C.M.A. No.7 of 2007.2. The undisputed facts leading to file this writ petition are as follows:The present petitioner has filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 73 of 2004 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada with a prayer of perpetual injunction. The suit was posted to 24.10.2006 for filing of draft issues. On that day owing to the absence of the plaintiff due to his illness, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The plaintiff- petitioner submits that on 18.01.2007 he filed an application for restoration of the suit. The opposite party no.3 appeared but did not file any written counter to the petition. The petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1. None was examined on behalf of the opposite party. However, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. Petitioner assails the order of the Chief District Medical Officer, Puri passed on 04.05.2010, Annexure-2 transferring him to the District Headquarter Hospital, Puri.2. Petitioner, who is working as a Pharmacist since 1995, was posted at Kamala Devi Mantri Maternity Home Hospital, Puri. He pleads that from the date of initial appointment till date there is absolutely no allegation against him nor there any adverse remark in his C.C.R. It is further pleaded that the opposite party no.1 had issued a letter dated 30.04.2010 to the Chief Medical Officer, Puri wherein serious allegations were made against some Paramedics and Ministerial Staff. Certain allegations have also been made against the present petitioner. On that basis directions were made to the C.D.M.O. to transfer such type of Paramedical and Ministerial Staff from parental posting to any other place in case they have completed more than three years in a particular station.It is further pleaded that the allegations received b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Mayabarha in the district of Sonepur. Apart from the petitioner, there were three other candidates to contest the election to be the office of the Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat. After declaration of the result of the election, the opp. party no. 2 filed an application under Section 31 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rampur challenging the election of the petitioner on the main ground that he had more than two children born after the cut off date. The said election petition was registered as MJC No. 10 of 2007. The petitioner after appearing in the said election dispute has filed a show cause/written statement. In paragraph-4 of the written statement, the petitioner denied the allegation with regard to the dates of birth of his children stating the same to be incorrect and false. On 26.6.2010, the opp. party no. 2 (election petitioner) filed an alleged extract of the immunization regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. The petitioner has challenged the findings in the award dated 30.11.1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in Industrial Dispute Case No. 41 of 1993 under Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which the learned Presiding Officer directed payment of compensation of a consolidated amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner instead of full back wages and other service benefits. 22. The case has left a long trail behind as the petitioner was before this Court twice earlier in OJC No. 1321 of 1982 and OJC No. 827 of 1987. Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner joined as a work- charged employee in the erstwhile Rourkela Steel Plant, at present, 'SAIL, Rourkela', in the year, 1959. In 1960, the petitioner's service was regularized. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year, 1981 when the service datas of the employees of the steel plant were computerized, his date of birth in his service record has been mentioned as 10.7.1924 instead of 15.8.1929. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been iiled by the petitionerDurga Naik @ Daroga Naik and Ramesh Naik, ' who have sought to challenge the order dated 4.7.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal at AngulDhenkanal in C.T. Case No.175 of 2006 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.l58 of 2005 arising out of Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No.4l of 2005) whereby, the learned4 A 10S subject the petitioners to trial by invoking the jurisdiction under ' Section 319 Cr.P.C..g S i 13. Accordingly, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. illed by the present petitioners Durga Naik @ Daroga Naik and Ramesh Naik is allowed and the order dated 4.7.2007 impugned herein passed , by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T. (SS) Case No.l75 of 2005, in so far as it relates to the present- petitioners is quashed. g A %/M} Q%~.,--l_..-n-___ __' /4 Wg Wl. Y _oR1ssA HIGH COURT ; cUTrAcK pSeptember, 2010/PKP HSessions Judge, Dhenkanal has been pleased to allow an application 2 u...
Tag this Judgment!