Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(II)OLR961
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ application, challenges the legality of the order dated 5.4.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2006 confirming the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M. Bhawanipatna in 2 (c) CC No. 9 of 2006 refusing to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 33-A/125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'R.P. Act') read with Section 177 of I.P.C.2. As per the writ petition, opp. party contested the 2004 Assembly Election from 99-Bhawanipatna (S.C.) Assembly Constituency. He filed the nomination papers along with two affidavits one in Form No. 26 of the Election Rules and the other in the format prescribed by the Election Commission in its order dated 27.3.2003. In the affidavit in Form No. 26, a candidate is required to furnish the following information :(I) Pending cases in which charges have been framed for the offence punishable with imprisonment for tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT71
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') filed by the Insurance Company challenging the legality & propriety of the Order Dated 28.11.2000 passed by the 2nd. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, (for short 'the Tribunal'). In Misc. Case No. 1041 of 1990, by which the Appellant Insurance Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000 to the claimant-Respondent with a consolidated cost of Rs. 250 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal, i.e., 7.11.1990 till its realization.2. The case of the claimant-Respondent before the Tribunal in nutshell was that on 22.8.1990 while he was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. OSU 4257 from Cuttack to his village Nimbera at about 2.30 P.M. the left side rear wheel tyres of the bus were suddenly burst, as a result of which the check plates of the bus over the said wheels moved upwards violently & hit again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 108(2009)CLT821; 2009(II)OLR902
S.K. Mishra, J.1. The matter is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.2. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter referred as 'the Code', for brevity, wherein the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have called in question, the legality of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.). Rourkela in Civil Suit No. 29 of 2007 refusing the prayer of the defendants to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code on the ground of gross under valuation of the suit.3. The simple facts giving rise to this revision application are that the opp.party No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 29 of 2007 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rourkela seeking the declaration that he and defendant Nos. 3,4, & 5 are the real owners of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession and to declare the Sale Deed No. 26362 dated 12.6.2007 in favour of the defendant No. 2 to be null and void. It is undisputed at the stage that the sale deed in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT152; 2010(I)OLR51
B.K. Patel, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner assails the legality of order of minor penalty of withholding one increment of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority under Annexure-3 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-3 and by the Revisional Authority under Annexure-7.2. Petitioner is a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the rank of Head Constable posted at TTPS, Talcher. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the following charge under Annexure-3:CISF No. 801390049 HC/GD R.P. Singh of CISF Unit NTPC/TTPS Talcher was detailed from 2100 hrs on 17.07.2007 to 0500 hrs on 18.07.2007 at Watch Tower No. 5/Broken wall PTL with walkie-talkie set, Sl/Exe. P.C. Patnaik shift in-charge while after asking the situation report of the duty post over walkie talkie, passed instruction to HC/GD R.P. Singh to remain in contact with the sentry of debris-yard by blowing whistle. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR97
ORDERS.C. Parija, J.1. The order of the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Bhubaneswar, dated 03,03.2008, passed in C.S. No. 120 of 2003, rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C., is under challenge in the present writ application.2. The facts, giving rise to the present writ application is that the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed C.S. No. 120 of 2003 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, against the defendant-opposite party No. 2, for eviction, recovery of arrear rent and mesne profit. During the pendency of the civil suit, the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 sold her right, title and interest in the suit property to the present petitioner by registered sale deeds dated 16.06.2004. After the sale of the suit property, as the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 did not pursue the civil suit in the right earnest and as the present petitioner, being a Us pendens transferee had vital interest i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT158
M.M. Das, J.1. The Petitioner & the Opp. Party No. 1 were candidates for election to the office of the Member of Athagarh Panchayat Samiti from Kumarpur Samity Constituency in the district of Cuttack. The Petitioner polled the highest number of votes being 2107, whereas the Opp. Party No. 1 was in the second run having polled only 129 votes. The result of the election was declared on 24.2.2007 declaring the Petitioner as the duly elected Member of the Panchayat Samiti. The Opp. Party No. 1 filed Election Case No. 3 of 2007 under Section 44-B of the Panchayat Samiti Act before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athagarh challenging the election of the Petitioner. The main ground taken in the election petition was that the Petitioner was disqualified from contesting the election, he having begotten three children, the last one having been born on 4.11.1995, i.e., after the cut-off date (21.4.1995). The Petitioner, however, took the stand that his third child was born on 26.6.1994...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT163
M.M. Das, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Opp. Parties in constructing a 132 KV Electric Tower over his land. The land in question is situated in mouza - Kesura appertaining to Chaka No. 300, Plot No. 671 under khata No. 122 measuring Ac. 0. 510 decimals, which is stated to be near the vicinity of capital city of Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda. The Petitioner has alleged that on 9.8.2009, he found that some people were digging holes in his land with the help of JCB Machine. On being protested, the labourers working there threatened the Petitioner that if he interferes with the work, they will lodge criminal case against him. Some of the staff members of the Opp. Parties explained to him that they are instructed to construct a tower for drawing 132 KV line from Mancheswar to Badgad. It has been further alleged that nothing was communicated to the Petitioner with regard to construction of such a tower over his land & if the same is allowed, it will cause imme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT208
B.P. Das, J.1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of assessment dated 5.1.2007 passed by the O.P. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela II Circle, under Section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 for the period 2003-2004 (Annexure-1) on the ground that the same having been passed beyond the period of limitation is illegal & not sustainable in the eye of law & therefore, liable to be quashed.2. As it appears, the Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing & production of RCC Hume Pipes in its factory located at Kalunga, Rourkela. In response to the notice issued under Section 12(4) of the OST Act for the year 2003-04, the Petitioner produced the books of accounts maintained by it in course of business as well as the declaration forms but the Sales Tax Officer passed the order of assessment making addition to the Gross Taxable Turnover (GTO) & Taxable Turnover (TTO) returned on account of transportation charges & further addition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2010CriLJ498
B.P. Ray, J.1. Challenge here in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S. T. Case No. 31 of 1995/ 176 of 1994 in the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Balasore. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment and sentence passed, held the appellants guilty of the charge Under Sections 498-A/304/B. IPC both read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R. I. for 10 years and R. I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to undergo for six months, respectively on the aforesaid counts. Learned Asst. Sessions Judge has further ordered that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.2. The prosecution case against the appellants is that one Manorama Panda, who happens to be the sister of the informant Pitambar Panda (P.W.1) was given in marriage to Sitikantha Panda in June 1991. At the time of marriage, the appellants made a demand of Rs. 10,000/- in cash and gold orn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT179
Sanju Panda, J.1. In this Writ Petition, challenge has been made to the Order Dated 15.8.2008 passed by the Learned Ad hoc Addl. District, F.T.C. No-II, Cuttack in FAO No. 137 of 2007 setting aside the order of status quo passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack on- 5.9.2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short, 'the Code') in I.A. No. 240 of 2007 arising out of C.S. No. 366 of 2005.2. The facts of the case, as narrated in the application, are as follows:The Petitioner as Plaintiff instituted C.S. No. 366 of 2005 for declaration that the Defendants have not derived any right, title & interest over the suit schedule property by virtue of the alleged sale deed dated 11.3.1983 & for permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession over the suit land. It was pleaded by the Plaintiff that he is the exclusive owner in possession of the suit schedule property which was allotted...
Tag this Judgment!