Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR188
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 09.03.2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 71 of 2006 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh framing charge against the petitioner under Section 304 Part 1 IPC.2. Fact of the case, in brief, is that on 03.12.2003 one Ajaya Kumar Ray lodged an FIR before the I.I.C., Titilagarh Police Station that his son, Sachin Kumar Ray, for fracture on his hand, was under the treatment of the petitioner, who was then serving as Asst. Surgeon, S.D. Hospital, Titilagarh. On the advice and prescription of the petitioner, two injections were given to his son on 01.12.2003. As the condition of his son became serious, the informant took him to Dr. Padhi, who advised him to give ice message. But seeing the condition of his son further deteriorating, informant brought him to the hospital at 5 P.M. on 02.12.2003 and admitted him as an indoor patient. Dr. B.B. Naik examined his son and advised him to shift the patient to D.H.H., Bolangi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ655
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In this revision, the petitioners challenge the order dated 6-1-2007 passed by the SDJM, Bhadrak taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 436/34, IPC against them in ICC Case No. 104 of 2006 instituted by opposite party No. 2.2. The allegation of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 is that while he was constructing the boundary wall between his house and that of the petitioners, the petitioners being armed with deadly weapons came and assaulted him. They also assaulted his family members and the labourers engaged for the purpose. Thereafter, the petitioners tried to set fire to the thatched roof of the complainant by pouring kerosene, but the same was extinguished with the help of the fire brigade. It is alleged that on account of such setting of fire, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 5000/-. The learned SDJM as it appears from the impugned order, perused the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant, statements of the witnesses recorde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori49
ORDERL. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 15-2-2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in RFA No. 138 of 2004 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable and consequently holding that the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inconsequential2. Opposite parties 1 to 4 filed Civil Suit No. 745 of 2004 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore for declaration of right, title, interest over the suit schedule land and for permanent injunction. The petitioners and opposite parties 5 and 6 were defendants in the suit. The case of the plaintiff opposite parties 1 to 4 is that the suit schedule land originally belonged to the defendants but the plaintiffs took over possession in the year 1990 and have been possessing the same by exercising their right of ownership openly, peacefully and continuously to the knowledge of the real owner. The case of the plaintiffs is that when the defendants attempted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT11
ORDER1. Heard.2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT14
1. Heard the parties and the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner.Petitioner as General Secretary, Petroleum Union (Eastern Branch) has filed this Writ Petition challenging to the order, Annexure 4 passed by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour Department. Relevant portion of Annexure-4 reads as follows:I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No. 8(9)/2001 dated 24.5.2001 from the ALC (Bhubaneswar (Orissa)) received in this Ministry on 06/06/2001 on the above mentioned subject and to say that, prima facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons:It is seen that none of the workmen involved in the dispute have completed 240 days of service during the proceeding 12 calender month prior to their date of termination'.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner with reference to the averments in paragraph-10 in the Writ Petition states that there is no quarrel on the number of days the workmen we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori46; 105(2008)CLT304; 2008(I)OLR49
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an appeal challenging the order of learned Additional District Judge, Sonepur in RFA No. 45/45 of 2002-2004 setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 24.08.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur in T.S. No. 36 of 1999 and remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal on merit.2. The appellants as plaintiffs filed the above noted suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and the alternative recovery of possession and also for permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendant-respondents did not contest that suit and in consequence ex parte judgment and decree was passed. The respondent-defendants challenged that ex parte judgment in the above noted RFA. Learned first appellate Court held that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the defendants on the date of hearing. He also held that the suit should be decided on merit and accordingly set aside the ex parte judgment and remande...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT132; 2007(II)OLR768
R.N. Biswal, J.1. Both the appeals having arisen out of one judgment, the same were heard together and a common judgment is passed thereon.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that on 12.3.1990 at about 8.00 A.M. Ranjit Meher (P.W. 11), Ramanath Mehera (P.W. 1), Pitabash Meher (P.W. 10) and about 40 to 50 others had been on a picnic to Sighinika jungle. At about 12.30 P.M. accused Puma Behera, Babru Behera and Sala Behera came to the picnic spot and asked to provide them food. While all the members of the picnic party and the aforesaid three persons were taking their food, Babru Behera started throwing rice at which Ranjit Meher (P.W. 11) rebuked him. Then Sala Behera, Babru Behera and Puma Behera stopped taking food and left the place. After the picnic was over Ranjit Meher (P.W. 11), Pitabash Meher (P.W. 10) and about five to six others returned in a jeep being driven by Narasingh Behera, while the rest returned in cycles. On the way, about 1 K.M. ahead of village Rampur, Na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT17; 2008(1)OLR84
1. Heard.This Writ Petition is as against Judgment of the State Education Tribunal, Orissa in Appeal No, 19 of 2000. Petitioner was the Appellant and the Governing Body of Sri Satya Sai Womens College, Bhubaneswar with its officials and the Director of Higher Education, Orissa were the Respondents in that appeal. Petitioner's service was terminated on 20.10.2000. That order of termination was challenged before the State Education Tribunal under Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short, 'the Act'). The dispute before the Tribunal centered round, if the Petitioner was the junior-most surplus staff and whether his termination is regulated by the provisions in Section 10-A(1)(a) of the Act.2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the Governing Body raises the issue on maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the impugned order is appealable under Section 24-C of the Act. According to Mr. Pattnaik, Learned Counsel for the Governing Body, provision in Section 24-B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT149
M.M. Das, J.1. M/s. MESCO Kalinga Steel Limited (in short, 'the MESCO') the Petitioner herein, has approached this Court in the present Writ Petition for a second time, inter alia, challenging the notice dated 4.7.2003 issued by the Opp. Party No. 1-IDCO directing the Petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 22,84,48, 890.00 and for execution of the lease deed, notice dated 25.7.2003 issued by the IDCO cancelling the deed of delivery and resuming the land back, letter dated 26.9.2003 issued by the IDCO refusing to withdraw the notice of resumption dated 25.7.2003 and the Order Dated 25.2.2004 issued by the IDCO rejecting the Petitioner's representation dated 20.1.2004 pursuant to the order passed by this Court in an earlier Writ Petition.2. For just appreciation of the case, it is necessary to go into the facts of the case, in brief, which are as follows:The Government of Orissa being desirous of utilizing its enormous natural resources and in order to promote industrialization ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR93
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. Both the criminal revisions arise out of the judgment and order dated 18.11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Angul in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1995/219 of 1997. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned order, the appellate Court has convicted the petitioner Gouranga under Section 354 IPC and petitioner Ganeswar under Section 354/109 IPC and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month by modifying the judgment and order dated 01.02.1995 passed by the learned C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Angul in S.T. Case No. 23 of 1993/Trial No. 19 of 1994 convicting Gouranga under Sections 376/511 IPC and Ganeswar under Sections 376/511/109 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for three years and six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo further R.I. for one month.2. Case of the prosecution is that P.W.7 lodged information stati...
Tag this Judgment!