Skip to content

Orissa Court October 2011 Judgments

Oct 25 2011

Manorama Nath Vs. Union of India

Court: Orissa

Decided on: Oct-25-2011

M.M. Das, J. 1. The claimant-appellant filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for award of compensation on account of death of her husband-Batakrushna Nath, who died on 26.08.2000 at Kapilas Road Railway Station. The Tribunal having rejected such application by order dated 02.03.2006 passed in O.A. No.31 of 2001, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The appellant’s case before the Tribunal was that the deceased came to Kapilas Road Railway Station to proceed to Cuttack for business purpose. He purchased a ticket bearing no.33834 at about 6.45 A.M. on the fateful day and waited for the arrival of the train. As the train was getting delayed, he made enquires and was told that the train was running late. The train arrived 25 minutes late and was expected to leave after five minutes. But, it again got delayed in the said Railway Station allegedly for some electrical problems. The dec...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 2011

Subhashree Das @ Mili Panda and Others Vs. State of Orissa

Court: Orissa

Decided on: Oct-19-2011

Reported in: 2012CrLJ244(NOC)

I. Mahanty, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Subhashree Das @ Milli Panda, Kishore Kumar Jena and Sangram Kumar Bhoi @ Sangram Bhola with aprayer to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No.16 of 2010 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Banpur and S.T. No.12/116 of 2010 in the court of learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Khurdaarising out of Balugaon P.S. Case No.8 of 2010 corresponding to CID (CB) P.S. Case No.1 of 2010. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners inter alia, on the following grounds: (A) Investigation not done by DSP, the competent officer empowered to investigate the case under the UAP Act. (B) Sanction is not valid sanction. (C) Documents relied on by prosecution has not formed part of the record. (D) Proper court has not taken cognizance. (E) Court trying the case is not competent. 3. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the o...

Tag this Judgment!

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files

Start your Free Trial