Orissa Court July 2011 Judgments
Lakshmikant Maharana Vs. State of Orissa and Others
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-2-1988 and decree dated 11-2-1988 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar in T. A. No.13/10 of 1987/86 affirming the judgment dated 11-4-1986 passed by the learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar in O. S. No.106 of 1982 by framing the ground Nos.4 and 7 as substantial questions of law urging various grounds in support of the same. 2. The relevant brief facts are stated for the purpose of answering the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission. The rank of the parties is referred to in this judgment as per the ranking assigned in the plaint presented before the trial Court for the sake of brevity. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property restraining the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from leasing out any portion of the plaintiff's land and restraining Defendant No.3 from taking out lease of any portion of the land of the plaintiff with other consequential re...
Tag this Judgment!Subodha Mohanta @ Subrat Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and Another
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging correctness of the order dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure-3) passed by opposite party No.2-District Magistrate, Balasore under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, “N.S. Act”) directing detention of the petitioner-Subodha Mohanta (for short “detenu”), in the District Jail, Balasore until further orders. The detenu has also challenged correctness of the order dated 24.03.2011 (Annexure-5) passed by the State Government in exercise of its power conferred under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the N.S.Act approving the detention of the petitioner as directed by opposite party No.2.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was remanded to jail custody in connection with Balasore Town P.S. Case No.27 dated 28.01.2011 under Sections 147/148/427/294/153-A/120-B/506/149, I.P.C., Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Sections 25/...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Tutsi Rout and Others
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. questioning the correctness of the judgment passed against it by the IIIrd M. A. C. T., Balasore in M. A. C.T. No.151/1998 of 96-93 in awarding Rs.1,53,600/- with 12% interest in favour of the claimants-respondents herein urging various grounds and prayed for setting aside the judgment by allowing this appeal. 2. The brief facts for appreciating the legal grounds urged in this appeal with a view to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and award is required to be interfered with by this Court are that the respondent-claimants herein have filed a claim petition before the IIIrd M.A.C.T., Balasore claiming compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- for the death of Ramakanta Rout in a road accident that occurred on 31-8-1992 at 3.30 P. M. at Soro-Kupari Road near village Hansaguda. While he was riding his motor cycle bearing Regn. No.OR-01-2943, suddenly a calf appeared before the motor cycle and in order to save the life of the...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Madhusudan Baliarsingh Vs. Sasmita Baliarsingh
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
L. MOHAPATRA, J. 1. In this writ application an important question of law relating to jurisdiction of the Family Courts established under the Family Courts Act, 1984 is raised. 2. The background of the case is that the petitioner had filed Mat. Case No.468 of 2002 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar praying for dissolution of marriage and a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by judgment and decree dated 18.6.2008 and 14.7.2008 respectively. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal by Matrimonial Appeal No.5 of 2008 against the said judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge. The learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar allowed the appeal on 21.1.2010. After the said judgment was delivered by the learned District Judge, a petition was filed by the opposite party under Order 41, Rule 21 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the said jud...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Kumar Nayak Vs. State of Orissa and Others
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
B.N. Mahapatra, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct opposite party No.1-State of Orissa, represented by the Secretary to Government of Orissa, Department of Health and opposite party No.2- Director of Red Cross Blood Bank, Municipal Hospital, Bhubaneswar to pay a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner. Further prayer is for a direction to opposite party No.4-Managing Director, Neelachal Hospital Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar to pay all the expenses which were spent by the petitioner for treatment of the petitioner’s son. 2. Petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that his son Adarsh was born on 21.10.2007 in Kalapathara Public Health Centre in the district of Nayagarh by a normal delivery. One day after the delivery, it was found that the baby has no anal canal. For proper treatment, the mother of the baby went to the nearest Public Health Centre where she was advised to move to Khurda Hospital as there was no paediatric specialist in the said P.H.C...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. B. Engineers and Builders Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the notice issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short, the ‘Act’) and the order of assessment dated 28.02.2003 passed under Sections 147/143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 1989-90 (Annexure-1 series) on the ground that action taken under Section 147and notice issued under Section 148 dated 13.01.1997 are barred by limitation and bad in law. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. For the assessment year 1989-90, the petitioner filed its return of income on 29.12.1989 disclosing loss of Rs.7,34,490/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) on 30.03.1990. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.1992 on total income of Rs.8,61,270/- Thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 13.01.1997 and the same was s...
Tag this Judgment!Tunilata Mallick Vs. State of Orissa and Others
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by the widow of Late Hrusikesh Mallick (for short, ‘deceased-husband’) praying for a direction to the opposite parties to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the bereaved family and conduct an independent inquiry with regard to unnatural death of her husband. 2. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that her deceasedhusband was a peace loving and law abiding citizen of the country. On 29.09.2006 at 10.30 A.M., opposite party No.4-Excise Inspector, Jajpur conducted raid in the house of the petitioner and searched all the corners of the house without any search warrant from any of thecompetent authorities and found 1.50 gm liquor bottle in presence of the villagers. At that time, while the deceased-husband of the petitioner was returning from river after taking bath, opposite party No.4 arrested him without showing any reason and took him to the custody without giving any seizure list. At the time of taking her husband to the cus...
Tag this Judgment!Augustine Kujur Vs. State of Orissa and Others
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to the opposite parties to hold a judicial enquiry or any other enquiry to find out whether the benefits of displacement areprovided to the actual displaced persons or to the strangers within a time to be stipulated and for a further direction to the opposite parties to provide the benefit of displacement to the displaced persons as per the list prepared in the year 1979 and 1981 by the District Administration. 2. The petitioners’ case in a nutshell is that they have been displaced due to the construction of Mandira Dam Project in order to cater the need of water of Rourkela Steel Plant (for short, “RSP”). To provide benefit of displacement to the actually land affected persons, the District Administration conducted enquiry in the year 1979 and 1981. In the enquiry conducted by the District Administration, a list ...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Bai Vs. District Judge, Koraput
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. In the present writ petition challenge has been made to the order dated 07.06.2010 under Annexure-5 passed by the learned District Judge, Koraput by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated. 2. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that opposite party No.1-District Judge, Koraput vide its advertisement dated 14.08.1992 invited applications for filling up of the posts of Junior Clerk, Junior Typistand Junior Stenographers. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Clerk. He appeared in the written examination as well as viva-voice test. Thereafter, a selection list of Junior Clerks was published on 13.10.1993 comprising of 119 candidates, wherein the petitioner found placed at serial No.25. Pursuant to the said selection list, 19 candidates were appointed vide order dated 02.11.1993. The petitioner’s grievance is that one Sabita Kumari Patri, whose serial No.22, was appointed on ladies quota out of turn even if the said advertisement was silent about an...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Vedanta Aluminium Limited Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs: “(a) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order/directions issued on 20.10.2010 pursuant to the show cause notice dated 31.08.2010; (b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the opp. party to reinstate the Terms of Reference issued to the petitioner;(c) issue a declaration that the public hearing proceedings are good and valid and have full force in respect of the proposed expansion project, (d) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus permitting the construction in relation to the expansion project to continue, (e) issue a writ of prohibition restraining the opposite parties as also their related Departments from initiating legal action under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for the alleged violation of the EIA Notification, 2006; (e-i) In the alternative issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner (as highlighted in its app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›