Orissa Court November 2013 Judgments
Mamita Thati Vs. Nepura Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
W.A. No.453 of 2013 BEFORE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.A.K. GOEL HONBLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH For the appellant Mr.H.S.Mishra,Advocate. For the respondents . 04. : : Mr.R.K.Mohapatra, Govt. Adv. 27.11.2013 ORDER (Dr. A.K. Rath, J.) Assailing the order dated 13.9.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.9766 of 2013, the appellant has filed the aforementioned appeal.2. In the election for the post of Sarpanch, Baragochha Grama Panchayat, the appellant was elected as Sarpanch. Challenging, inter alia, the result of the election, respondent no.1 as petitioner laid an election dispute being Election Petition No.5/2013 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantamal.3. The case of the election petitioner is that actual name of the appellant is Sasmita Danta. She is the daughter of Bhumisuta Danta. She completed primary education from EGS M.E.School, Baragochha. Thereafter she took admission in Sri Jagannath High School, Sagada. After passing in the H.S.C. Examination,...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Radhagovinda Jew, Rep. by Mahanta Narottam Vs. Sri Rama Chandr ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-25-2013
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11356 of 2005 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------------Sri Sri Sri Radhagovinda Jew, represented by Mahanta Narottam Das Petitioner Versus Sri Rama Chandra Patra and others. For petitioner - For opposite parties Opposite parties - M/s. A.K.Mishra, A.K.Sharma, M.K.Dash, P.K.Dash, S.Mishra and C.K.Deo. P.K.Rath, R.C.Jena, P.K.Satpathy, R.N.Parija and A.K.Rout (for opp.party no.1), M/s. M/s. N.K.Sahoo, B.Swain, S.Sahoo (for opp.parties 3 to6) ------------PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. K. MISHRA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Judgment - November 25, 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.K.Mishra, J.The petitioner being the decree holder in E.P. No.2 of 1999 of the court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi assails the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Manager(Legal),shrir Vs. Rout Purti
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-22-2013
FAO NO.325 of 2013 03 22.11.2013 MISC.CASE NO.635 OF 6013 This is an application for grant of time to remove the defect, as had been directed by order dated 18.09.2013. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the meantime the defect, as pointed out by the S.R.has already been removed. Office to verify. In view of the submission made, no further order is necessary. Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. (S.C.PARIJA, J.) MISC.CASE NO.713 OF 6013 04 22.11.2013 This is an application for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. Considering the submissions made and the grounds taken in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Misc.Case is accordingly disposed of. (S.C.PARIJA, J.) FAO NO.325 OF 2013 05 22.11.2013 Receipt showing deposit of the awarded amount is filed in Court today, which be kept on record. Though the matter was listed for orders today, on consent of the learned counsel for the parties the same is taken up for final disposal. Heard lear...
Tag this Judgment!Rm,o.i.Co.Ltd. Vs. Baikunthanath Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-22-2013
FAO NO.420 of 2013 03 22.11.2013 MISC.CASE NO.724 OF 6013 This is an application for condonation of delay of 78 days in filing the appeal. Considering the submissions made and the grounds taken in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.800/-, to be paid to Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the claimantrespondent nos.1 to 3, which shall is paid in Court. Misc.Case is accordingly disposed of. (S.C.PARIJA,J.) FAO NO.420 OF 2013 04 22.11.2013 Receipt showing deposit of the awarded amount is filed in Court today, which be kept on record. Though the matter was listed for orders today, on consent of the learned counsel for the parties the same is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel for the part6ies. This appeal by the Insurance Company, is directed against the judgment/award dated 10.05.2013, passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Bhubaneswar, in W.C.Case No.108 of 2010, awarding an amount of Rs.6,64...
Tag this Judgment!Pitambara Nayak Vs. Adm,balasore
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-21-2013
W.P.(C) No.14858 of 2012 04. 21.11.2013 Heard Mr.Ramakanta Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Niranjan Panda-I, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2-Balasore Municipality.2. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice issued by the Balasore Municipality dated 24.05.2013 under Annexure-1 by which the Executive Officer of the said Municipality directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorized hoardings failing which the opposite partyMunicipality shall remove the same without any further intimation and that too at the cost of the petitioner.3. Perusal of Annexure-2, the agreement entered into between the petitioner and opposite party No.2, in terms of which petitioners Association was granted lease for two financial years, i.e., 2011-12 and 2012-13 for display of hoardings in the Municipal area in accordance with the Council resolution dated 25.06.2011. Petitioners essential claim is that as per Clause 23 of the said agreement (Annexure-2) they are...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeepta Ku.Dash Vs. R.T.A.,cuttack
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-19-2013
W.P.(C) No.22704 of 2013 02. 19.11.2013 Heard learned learned Standing counsel for the petitioner and Counsel appearing for the Transport Department. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration Nos.OR-05-G/2562 and OR-05-G/2563 (Tractor & Trailer) and the opposite party is No.granting permit and fitness certificate in respect of the said vehicle as the petitioner is in default of paying tax and penalty for some period. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit the tax, but the penalty amount being excessive, the same may be reduced. Considering the submissions made, it is directed that if the petitioner pays the tax demanded by 04.12.2013 and undertakes before the opposite party to pay 60% of the penalty amount in three equal consecutive instalments, i.e., by 19.12.2013, 03.01.2014 and 18.01.2014, then on payment of tax and the fiRs.instalment of the pen...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwini Ku.Samantara Vs. Tahasildar,tangi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-19-2013
W.P.(C) No.20233 of 2013 04. 19.11.2013 Misc. Case No.21220 of 2013 This Misc. Case has been filed by the petitioner for amendment of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Considering the averments made in this misc. case, the prayer for amendment is allowed and the consolidated writ petition filed in the Court be brought on record. Copy of the consolidated writ petition has been served on opposite party-State. The Misc. Case is disposed of........I.Mahanty, J. ...... B.N.Mahapatra, J. 05. 19.11.2013 W.P.(C) No.20233 of 2013 Heard Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of opposite party parties. Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, learned Additional Government Advocate produces the case records of the Tahasildar, Tangi, Khurda in Encroachment Case No.110 of 2013-14. Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts th...
Tag this Judgment!Basanta Ku.Dhal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-19-2013
W.P.(Crl.) No.48 of 2013 10. 19.11.2013 Heard Mr.R.K.Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.Das, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Vigilance and the learned Additional Government Advocate.2. by Challenge is made to the order dated 07.01.2013 passed the Authorized Officer, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in Confiscation Case No.7/2012, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner questioning the maintainability of the proceeding initiated against him came to be rejected.3. Mr.Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate drew attention of this Court to first paragraph of page 3 of the impugned order which reads thus:In this case the period between May, 1970 to June, 2001 has been taken as the check period. It is true that during the entire check period he was No.holding high public office. But, for trial of the case by the Special Judge, Special Court, and initiation of the proceeding before the Authorised Officer, the date on which search was made is material. The purpose of the Sp...
Tag this Judgment!Meghamala Dalai Vs. A.O.Sbi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-07-2013
W.P.(C) No.23891 of 2013 Present : Smt. Meghamala Dalai, petitioner in person. None for the opposite parties. 03. 07.11.2013 This petition has been preferred against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act before the D.R.T.for recovery of loan advanced to the petitioner. In paragraph 1 of the petition, it is mentioned that earlier the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.6039 of 2012 which was disposed of on 07.08.2012. The relevant portion of the order dated 7.8.2012 reads as follows: We, accordingly, dispose of the writ application directing the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,90,000/- (three lakhs ninety thousand) with the opposite party-Bank within a period of six weeks from today along with a proposal for rephasement of the balance dues. In the event the amount is deposited by the petitioner within the time stipulated and a proposal is given for rephasement, the same shall be considered by the Bank favourably. On failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›