Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori109
Sanju Panda, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He has challenged the order and decree dated 11-8-1983 and 28-8-1983 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jeypore in Money Suit No. 116 of 1982 wherein the learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff without granting any interest on the principal amount. Hence, the present appeal is confined to the payment of interest part only.2. Though notice of this appeal was issued to and personally served on the respondent, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.3. Before dealing with the question raised, the facts involved in the present case leading to filing of the appeal are narrated.The appellant-plaintiff out of friendly re-, lationshtp had given Rs. 12,000/- to the defendant on 25-4-1979 and on demand the defendant, vide two letters, Ext. 1 dated 4-6-1980 and Ext. 2 dated 28-3-1980, agreed to pay the said amount. The defendant has also issued two cheques dated 8-10-1980 and 10-1-1982 to the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR56
ORDERM.M. Das, J. 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner.2. On 20.11.2006, one Shri Dandanirodha Mishra, the then General Manager of 'The Samaja' lodged an F.I.R. in the Cantonment Police Station alleging, inter alia, that a sum of Rs. 97,08,500/- has been mis-appropriated from the account of 'The Samaja' in two phases. It was alleged that the petitioner, who was the then General Manager, Printer and Publisher of 'The Samaja' by resorting to fraud, forgery, cheating etc., at the first phase, misappropriated a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs and in the second phase, the petitioner and Shri Sunil Poddar, Managing Director of M/s. Poddar Global Ltd. misappropriated a sum of Rs. 47,08,500/- fraudulently. On lodging of the F.I.R., investigation was taken up. Two cheques amounting to Rs. 15.00 lakhs each and another cheque amounting to Rs. 20.00 lakhs, being bearer cheques, under the joint signature of the petitioner and Smt. Manorama Mohapatra, who is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009ACJ435; 2008(I)OLR11
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. When this matter is taken up, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner to move this writ petition nor any mention has been made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for adjournment of the case.I have gone through the contents of the writ petition.2. As it appears certified copy of the impugned award has not been filed along with writ petition at the time of its presentation. Only the free copy of the award, which is supplied to the Insurance Company for compliance, has been filed. The free copy of the award is supplied to the parties for the purpose of information and compliance of the order, but not for the purpose of using the same in filing of the appeal or writ petition, challenging the same award.3. This writ petition has been filed on 07.03.2006 by the opposite party No. 2/Insurance Company challenging the judgment/award dated 02.03.2004 passed by the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in Misc. Case No. 579 of 1993. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT139
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. When this matter is taken up, nobody appeared on behalf of the Petitioner to move this Writ Petition nor any mention has been made on behalf of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner for adjournment of the case.2. I have gone through the contents of the Writ Petition.3. As it appears certified copy of the impugned award has not been filed along with Writ Petition at the time of its presentation. Only the free copy of the award, which is supplied to the Insurance Company for compliance, has been filed. The free copy of the award is supplied to the parties for the purpose of information and compliance of the order, but not for the purpose of using the same in filing of the appeal or Writ Petition, challenging the same award.4. This Writ Petition has been filed on 07.03.2006 by the Opposite Party No. 2/lnsurance Company challenging the Judgment/award dated 02.03.2004 passed by the Learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in Misc. Case No. 579 of 1993. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT374; 2008(I)OLR80
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The order dated 2.8.2007 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Kamakhyanagar in Election Misc. Case No. 25 of 2007 is assailed in this Writ Petition by the opposite party No. 1 in the said Election Misc. Case.2. The election for the post of Panchayat Samiti Member of Kanpura Panchayat Samiti was held on 17th February, 2007 in which three candidates had contested. After counting of votes it was found that one Usharani Mahalik and the present Writ petitioner Nibedita Rout had secured equal number of votes, i.e. 1119 each whereas present opposite party No. 1 (petitioner before the Court below) had secured 1116 votes. By lottery, the present petitioner was declared elected. Thereafter a petition was filed for recounting of votes. On recounting it was found that there was a tie between the present petitioner and Mitarani present opposite party No. 1, inasmuch as both of them had secured 1117 votes each and Usharani had secured 1114 votes. Consequently again l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori92
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Koraput in MAT Appeal No. 1 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Koraput in O.S. No. 19 of 2002.2. The present respondents, as plaintiffs, filed the above noted suit asking for maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- from the present appellant No. 1 on the ground that they are the wife and daughter of appellant No. 1 and that appellant No. 1 neglected to maintain them and treated them with cruelty. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement denied any relationship with the plaintiffs and further pleaded that the present appellant No. 2 is his legally married wife whom he married in the year 1977. He thus denied his liability to pay maintenance to the plaintiff-respondents. Learned trial Court framed six issues, accepted evidence from the parties and on consideration of the same held that the plaintiff No. 1 is not the legally married wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori116; 105(2008)CLT86
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 was elected as the President of Nayagarh Regional Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. (in short 'Nayagarh R.C.M.S. Ltd.') on 29.07.2004 and thereafter he continued as such. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the elected members to the Committee of Management of Nayagarh R.C.M.S. Ltd. They assumed the office on 30.07.2004. According to the provision in Section 28 (1-aa) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (in short 'the Act'), the term of office of the Committee shall be for four years from the date of assumption of office by the Committee and in that respect the date of election of the President shall be deemed to be the date of assumption of office by the Committee.2. Alleging breach of that provision of law by the Opposite Party members in passing the order Annexure-1 by superseding the Committee and vesting the authority with A.R.C.S., Nayagarh to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Nayagarh R.C.M.S. Ltd. w.e.f. 25.04.2007 until further order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR46
B.P. Das, J.1. The petitioner, who is working as a Sub-staff in the United Bank of India, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 14.6.2007, transferring him from Nayapalli Branch, Bhubaneswar to Raigarh Branch, in the State of Chhatisgarh, vide Annexure-1 as well as the order relieving him on 21.6.2007, vide Annexure-2.2. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the said order of transfer is vioiative of the Agreement made between the Management and the Workers' Union embodied in paragraph 536 of the 'Sastri Award' which reads as follows:In general the policy should be to limit the transfers to the minimum consistent with banking needs and efficiency. So far as members of the subordinate establishment are concerned, there should be no transfers ordinarily and if there are any transfers at all they should not be beyond the language area of the person so transferred. Even in the case of workmen not belonging to the subordinate staff, as far as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT309; 2008(I)OLR344
M.M. Das, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the widow of late Madhu Mangal Dash, who was working as a primary school teacher. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer to quash the office order No. 3565 dated 16.10.2003 of the DistrictInspector of Schools, Bolangir, rejecting her claim for grant of family pension with T.I. thereon.2. The late husband of the petitioner was appointed as a primary school teacher on 1.5.1957 in the Babupali Primary School. While continuing as such, he remained on leave with effect from 31.8.1970 and could not join in his service because of prolonged illness. Ultimately, he died on 12.5.1993. The case of the petitioner is that in normal course, her husband would have retired from service with effect from 16.4.1995 as his date of birth was 16.4.1937. The petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 2890 of 2001 claiming family pension, T.I. and unpaid dues of her late husband. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT21; 2008(1)OLR18; (2008)14VST509(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the initiation of re-assessment proceeding under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 by the Sales Tax Officer, Koraput-II Circle, Rayagada (hereinafter called as 'S.T.O.') on the following two grounds.i) The A.G. Audit Report on the basis of which proceeding under the Act has been initiated is not in conformity and in contempt of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the cases of P.R. Tata & Co. v. Sales Officer (1971) 27 STC 176, State of Orissa v. Iqbal Bros. (1990) 79 STC 337; andii) Non-communication of reason for reopening of the assessment in writing to the Petitioner is arbitrary and vitiates the proceeding initiated Under Section 12(8) of the Act.2. In this case, a Division Bench of this Court on 20.9.2001 while Issuing notice on the question of admission indicated that there were conflicting opinions of this Court...
Tag this Judgment!