Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1958Ori168; 1958CriLJ1055
R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a proceeding for contempt started against the former Chief Minister of Orissa, Sri Naba Krishna Choudhury in respect of a speech made by him in the Orissa Legislative Assembly on 8-3-1956. An extract from the speech was published in a local daily known as 'Matrubhumi' on 10-3-1956. The Editor and the Printer and Publisher of the said daily were also called upon to show cause why they may not be committed for contempt, but they have both tendered an unqualified apology.2. In October 1953 a Division Bench of this Court, (Panigrahi C. J. and Mohapatra J) in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by one of the Zammdars of Ganjam district delivered judgment holding that the survey made in Ganjam District was not authorised by law inasmuch as the proper notification under the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act of 1923 was not issued, and also gave consequential reliefs to the applicant. This judgment was reported in Mohan Prasad Singh Deo v. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2005Ori11
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the object of protecting the right, interest and welfare of consumers in the State of Orissa. The petitioner No. 2 is, a consumer of electricity. The Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (for short, 'GRIDCO') has been procuring, transmitting and making bulk supply of electrical energy to four distribution companies, namely, Central Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short, 'CESCO'), Western Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short, WESCO), Northern Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited {for short, 'NESCO') and Southern Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short, 'SOUTHCO'), and the said four distribution companies have been carrying on the business of distribution and retail supply of electricity to the consumers in their respective areas in the State of Orissa. Under the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 (for short, 'the 1995 Act'), the Orissa El...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1967)ILLJ663Ori
K. Ahmad, C.J.1. This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate direction, order or writ as provided therein. The petitioner is a member of the Judicial Branch of the Orissa Civil Service. The petition is directed against the Government Order issued under Notification No. 1068, dated 15 January 1963, reverting the petitioner from the post of temporary Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) to his substantive rank of Subordinate Judge. The grievance made by the petitioner is that this order of reversion was passed by way of punishment. As such it amounted to his reduction in rank as contemplated in Article 311 of the Constitution of India, Therefore, the procedure as laid down therein not having been admittedly followed and the petitioner not having been given any opportunity of showing cause against that order, it is said to be void, illegal and not binding in law.2. The persons impleaded as members of the opposite party to the petition are two:(1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2000(I)OLR294
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The opposite party has not entered appearance after service of notice.2. Petitioner is the complainant in I.C.C. No. 175 of 1991 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurda. On 11.10.1991 he filed a complaint petition alleging commission of offences Under Sections 427/448, IPC against the opposite party members who were the accused persons in that case. In the complaint petition, petitioner has stated that because of the demolition of the compound wall complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand). In his initial statement, however, petitioner did not state the amount of loss which he sustained. On 28.1 0.1 991, the S.D.J.M. after perusing the complaint petition and initial statement of the complainant took cognizance of the offences Under Sections 426/34, IPC. Thereafter, the accused appeared, accusation was explained to him as per the summons procedure and trial taken up. During the mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(I)OLR430
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Lisin the these two First Appeals commenced as long back as in the year 1969. These two First Appeals are also pending since last more than two decades. We felt that any more delay in disposal of the Appeals would virtually cause denial of justice. The Appeals were taken up for hearing in spite of some preliminary objections and are heard at length. As both the First Appeals involve common facts and are out of one judgment, the same are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Bereft of all necessary details, the short facts which are necessary for effectual adjudication of the two Appeals are stated herein below :Admittedly, the lands in dispute appertaining to Survey Nos. 123/1, 121/4 and 78/2 under Patta No. 148, situated at village Adduapada in Badakhemindi Tahasil were part and parcel of the Intermediary estate of Sri Ramachandra Deo, Ex-Intermediary of Badakhemindi. On promulgation of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the OEA Act') the E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3008
A.K. Parichha, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 28 8-2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M,. Angul in C.T. No. 1108 of 2006 rejecting his prayer for release of the Maruti Van bearing Registration No. OR-13-0242 in his interim zima.2. The above noted Maruti Van which is under the registered ownership of the petitioner, was seized by the police authorities on 16-6-2006 at about 3.30 a.m. from the possession of Md. Imran, Md. Phiroj and Fakir Kansa when those persons were transporting 2.5 quintals of Kendu leaf in the said vehicle. After the seizure of the vehicle and Kendu leaf Nalco Nagar P.S. Case No. 56 of 2006 was registered for commission of offence under Sections 379, 411/34 of the I.P.C., Section 4 of the Kendu Leaf Act and Sections 4, 14 and 21 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules. The fact of seizure was intimated to the learned Magistrate, but the vehicle was given in the custody of the Forest Range Officer as the vehicle was involved in a fore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1982Ori57
B.N. Misra, J.1. This is the first suit filed in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. Reena Padhi, widow of the late Rabindranath Padhi, is plaintiff No. 1 Rinku plaintiff No. 2 and Rajat plaintiff No. 3 are respectively the minor daughter and son of plaintiff No. 1 and the late Rabindranath Padhi. Minor plaintiffs 2 and 3 are represented in the suit by their mother plaintiff No. 1 who has filed an affidavit that her interest is not adverse to that of her minor daughter and son. The owners and parties interested in the ship 'Jagdhir' are described as defendant No. 1 and Messrs Great Eastern Shipping Company, Limited having their registered office at Mercantile Bank Building, 60 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay are defendant No. 2. In the plaint both 'action in rem' and 'action in personam' are combined and pleaded against the defendants. However, Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted to the Court that for the present he was not pressing for an action in rem. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2004]134STC62(Orissa)
P.K. Misra, J.1. This batch of writ petitions has come up before this Full Bench on being referred by different division Benches. O.J.C. No. 9087 of 1997 was the first case to be so referred. The question formulated by the division Bench is as follows :'Whether there can be any direction for grant of interest in a case where reassessment has been directed, notwithstanding the fact that reassessment has not been completed in view of provisions contained in sections 14 and 14-C of the Act.'Since the other writ petitions are said to involve similar points as O.J.C. No. 9087 of 1997, they were also referred to the Full Bench to be heard along with the said case. It may be stated here that the grievance of the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 9087 of 1997 has already been disposed of by the Full Bench by its order dated April 21, 1998. However, while doing so, the reference has been kept pending. In the order dated April 21, 1998 it has been observed :'The reference is kept pending, not for the pur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 69(1990)CLT102; I(1990)DMC281
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.2. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant were married on 2-3-1969 and the marriage was duly consumated and they were living as husband and wife, but they did not have any issue. They continued as such till 1973 when the defendant began to illtreat the plaintiff mostly on account of the fact that no child was born. The plaintiff was driven out of the husband's house in September, 1973. She then sent a registered notice on 8-3-1974 but the defendant denied the allegations made in the notice. In reply to the registered notice, the defendant alleged that there has been no marriage between the plaintiff and defendant. On these allegations, the suit was filed for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.3. The defendant in his written statement denied all the allegations made in the plaint. According to the defence case, the defendant had marri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 86(1998)CLT114; 1998(II)OLR136
S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. The background facts, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows :The petitioner purchased a plot of land in the year 1993 near the residential office of the Collector, Jharsuguda on the State Highway and after approval of plan and after obtaining proper permission from the Sambalpur Regional Improvement Trust, she constructed a double storeyed house. When the house was under construction, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the opposite parties started construction of 132 KV Tower line for transmission of electric energy from Brajarajnagar across the State Highway to Cement Factory of L & T situated at Arda. She raised objection, and it was found that necessary permission as required under law was not taken. Construction was stopped for some time. Thereafter, all on a sudden, construction of the tower started. Line from Kantapalli to the cement factory in one side of the tower was taken. The said line is not going directly over the house of the petitioner, bu...
Tag this Judgment!