Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1980Ori79; 48(1979)CLT333
R.N. Misra, J.1. Petitioner is a sitting Councillor of the Cuttack Municipality. Challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is to Government order dated 23rd of June, 1979 (Annexure-4), purported to have been made in exercise of powers under Section 398 (1) of the Orissa Municipal Act of 1950, cancelling a resolution of the Municipal Council of Cuttack dated 2nd of April, 1979,2. Election was held on 31st of January, 1979, for the 28 seats of Councillors and the Chairman of the Council. Petitioner was elected from Ward No. 2 while 27 others were elected from the different wards. Opposite Party No. 3 was elected as Chairman of the Municipality by direct franchise under the amended provisions of the Act. The Council assumed office with effect from 23rd of February, 1979. At the Meeting of the Council held on 2nd of April, 1979, one of the items in the Agenda was to authorise the Chairman to sanction expenditure up to Rs. 50,000/- at a time for the smooth working ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1983Ori89; 54(1982)CLT475
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceeding initiated against the petitioners under Orissa Regulation No. 2 of 1956 directing restoration of possession of the properties to opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 by ejecting the petitioners therefrom.2. The disputed land known as 'Jholla Billa' measuring about 10 acres is situated in village Tadakasahi within Ramagiri police station of Parlakhemundi Sub-division in the district of Ganjam. Boisomo Pradhano, father of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3, had borrowed money from late K. Kasi Patra, father of petitioners Nos. 1 to 6. Money Suit No. 16 of 1958 was filed in the court of the Munsif, Berhampur for realisation of the debt. The suit was decreed in favour of late K. Kasi Patra and Execution Case (E. P. No. 205 of 1959) was filed for executing the decree. During the pendency of the execution proceeding K. Kasi Patra died and the proceeding was carried on by his legal representatives. The disputed land ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2001Ori17; 91(2001)CLT42
P.K. Mohanty, J. 1. The petitioner, who appeared at the M.Com. Part-I Examination, 1997 as a Non-Collegiate Candidate under the Utkal University, has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus and/or an appropriate direction to the University for re-evaluation of the answer papers in Papers-Ill and IV. 2. The petitioner's case, in short, is that he was a brilliant student throughout and he had passed all examinations beginning from H.S C. till B.Com. (Hons.) in 1st Class. However, he appeared as a Non-Collegiate candidate in M.Com. Patt-I Examination, 1997 under Utkal University bearing Roll No. 219V06970037 at the Commerce Department of the Utkal University Centre. The M.Com. Part-I examination consists of four papers each carrying 100 marks and he did very well in all the papers and was expecting to secure more than 60% of the marks in aggregate out of 400 marks. But the result, which was published in the month of April, 1998 revealed that he secured less than 50% of marks which sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2001CriLJ4359; 2001(II)OLR435
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. This application Under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') has been filed .by the petitioner who is accused in G. R. Case No. 42 of 1996 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Baripada. Application filed by the petitioner with his wife (informant)/opposite party No. 2) to compound the offence Under Section 498A, I.P.C., was turned down by learned S.D.J.M. on May 9, 2000 on the ground that such offence is not compoundable.Petitioner thus prays to quash the proceeding i.e., G. R. Case No. 42 of 1996 on the ground that in view of the compromise between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 continuance of the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court.2. Admittedly, petitioner is the husband and opposite party No. 2 (informant in the G.R.Case Case) is his wife and State of Orissa i.e., opposite party No. 1 is the prosecutor. On the basis of the allegations made by opposite party No. 2 regarding demand of dowry and ill-treatment and tortur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 94(2002)CLT107; 2002(I)OLR574
B.P. Das, J.1. As common questions of law and fact are involved in both these writ petitions, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. O.J.C. No. 8795/99 has been filed by a member of this Bar, namely, Shri Sidheswar Mallik, claiming himself to be a concerned resident and representing the residents of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation in espousing their cause. Similarly, the other writ petition, O.J.C. No. 6919/99, has been filed by one Shri B. K. Mohanty, General Secretary of the Cuttack Chamber of Commerce, the Orissa Byabasayee Mahasangha, the Cuttack Nagar Byabasayee Mahasangha and the Orissa Rice Merchants' Association, on behalf of the above organisations as well as the general public of Cuttack City. Both the writ petitions have been couched as public interest litigation.3. O.J.C. No. 8795/99 : In this writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that the decision of the Cuttack Municipal Corp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT555; 2005(II)OLR779
M.M. Das, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against an order dated 1.7.2005 of the Learned Single Judge passed in O.J.C. No. 17341 of 2001.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 164 of 1979 against the appellant to set aside a sale deed, which was executed and registered by one Gajendra Acharya in favour of the appellant with respect to the 'A' Schedule property of the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. The grounds taken in the plaint were that the sale deed was obtained by playing fraud and coercing the vendor. The appellant's case was that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 realizing that the suit would be dismissed got a compromise petition filed in the suit, which according to the appellant was obtained by the respondent No. 1 by playing fraud on the appellant. However, on the Court causing an enquiry under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, held that the compromise was lawful and the same was made a part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2007Ori120; 104(2007)CLT310
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Four writ petitions have been filed challenging constitutional validity of the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Ordinance, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Ordinance'). During the course of hearing of the matter before the Court, the said Ordinance was replaced by an Act and came to be known as Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). Out of the four writ petitions, in W.P. (C) No. 4073 of 2007 Article 15(5) of the Constitution which has come by way of 93rd Amendment to the Constitution has also been challenged. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however later on gave up the said challenge.2. But. in all these writ petitions the constitutional validity of the said Ordinance as replaced by the said Act was challenged.3. First of these four writ petitions was registered as W.P. (C) No. 2446 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2009Ori46; 2008(II)OLR725:AIR2009Orissa46
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment of August 6, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 386 of 2007 is assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal. In the FAO an order of September 9, 2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, FTC-Ill, Bhubaneswar in Interim Application No. 12 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 498 of 2004 appointing a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'CPC) was assailed.2. The question of maintainability of the LPA against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court was raised in course of hearing of the LPA. It was pointed out at the Bar that there had been two sets of directly conflicting judgments of Division Benches of this Court, inasmuch as in the case of V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patl and Anr. 2006 (II) OLR 349, a Division Bench had taken the view that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in view of amendment of Section 100-A CPC against the judgment/order of a learned Single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder urging various facts and legal grounds.2. Brief facts in nutshell are stated as under: The petitioner in each of the writ petitions is accused of offence punishable under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Originally each one of the petitioners case was pending either in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance at Bhubaneswar or Cuttack or other places in the State. After establishment of the Special Courts pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government establishing Special Courts, the case of the petitioners were transferred to the respective Special Judge of the Special Courts established under the Orissa Special Courts Act.3. The Orissa Special Courts Act has been passed by the Orissa Legislative Assembly and the same has been assented to by the President of India on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK WRIT PETITION (C) Nos. 15519/2010, 5737/2010, 18577/2011, 5186/2012, 5187/2012, 1087/2008, 3562/2008, 3563/2008, 3775/2009, 3903/2009, 1963/2012, 5764/2007, 6982/2012, 7/2008, 13978/2008, 3515/2008, 579/2010 and 5101/2012. 7975/2011, 2959/2008, 3132/2010, 3010/2012, In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India TATA STEEL LTD ---------(WP(C) 15519/2010) ESSAR STEEL ORISSA (WP(C) 5737/2010) M/s. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 7975/2011) M/s. JAYSHREE CHEMICALS LTD. (WP(C) 18577/2011) M/s. GMR KAMALANGA (WP(C) 5186 & 5187/2012) INDIAN METALS AND FERRO LTD (WP(C) 1087/2008) HINDALCO INDUSTRIES (WP(C) 2959/2008) RUNGTA MINES LTD (WP(C) 3562/2008) MANGILLALL RUNGTA (WP(C) 3563/2008) NAGAR EXPORT PVT, LTD (WP(C) 3775 & 3903/2009) MIKAGE STONE DEVELOP (WP(C) 3132/2010) M/S. BHARATI TELEMEDI (WP(C) 1963/2012) MAHASWARI COAL (WP(C) 5764/2007) M/S. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 6982/2012 IFGL REFRACTORIES (WP(C) 7/2008) M/S ADANI ENERPRISE (WP(C) 3010/2012) ...
Tag this Judgment!