Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2788
L. Mohapatra, JJ.1. Both the Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29-5-1995 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No. 86/12 of 1993. As it appears, eighteen persons were charged for commission of offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, but seventeen persons faced trial and the case was split up against one of the accused persons. Out of the seventeen accused persons who faced trial, five were acquitted, namely Dura Jena, Dinabandhu Das, Parsu Das, Padan Jena and Kasi Das. All the appellants were convicted for commission of offence under Section 148 of the IPC. Learned trial Court is silent with regard to award of any sentence for conviction under Section 148, IPC and thereby, has not awarded separate sentence thereunder, though the same should have been specifically pointed out. Appellants Krupasindhu Das, Narahari Jena, Laxmidhar Jena, Jairam Das, Trilochan Ghadei, Alekha Ghadei and Gobinda Mohanty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR879; 2010(I)OLR(NULL)102
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Since similar question is involved in all the five writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The brief facts of the case are that Original Application No. 23 of 2000 was filed by one Sudhir Chandra Roy, one of the opposite parties in the instant writ petitions alleging that he was appointed as regular Sub-Inspector of Police and joined the post on 4.1.1973. Thereafter he was given promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police with effect from 12.3.1991. A provisional gradation list of Inspectors of Police was circulated with the forwarding letter dated 23.6.1999 in which his name was shown at SI. No. 135. It was claimed by him that the previous gradation list alleged to have been prepared in 1979 showing the seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police of different categories was never circulated and as such his position in that gradation list was not known to him and when the promotion was made in the year 1991 he had no i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT396; 2008(1)OLR407; (2008)14VST298(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the revisional order dated 13.3.1992 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa (hereinafter called as the 'revisional authority') in Revision Case No. SA.517/91 -92, confirming the order dated 30.10.1989 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (hereinafter called as 'the S.T.O.), Sambalpur-III Circle, Jharsuguda, imposing penalty of Rs. 37,00,000/-under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.S.T. Act').2. In nutshell, the background facts which are relevant for the purpose of dealing with this writ petition are as follows:The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Seepat Road, Bilaspur in the State of Madhya Pradesh and is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. It has an unit in Brajarajnagar in the district of Sambalpur (Orissa) and it is a Government of India undertaking. The business of the petitioner is to extract c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT792
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Both the review petitions were heard analogously on 29.01.2008 and this common order shall abide the result.Fifteen Petitioners in Review Petition No. 10 of 2003 claim to be the teaching staff of the Mangala Mahavidyalaya, Kakatpur Governing Body of the said institution have filed the other Review Petition. In both the review petitions, the prayer is common. They pray to recall/review Judgment in O.J.C. No. 9794 of 2000 passed on 26.08.2002. Petitioners in that O.J.C. are Opp.Parties 4 to 18 and 3 to 17 respectively in the above noted two review petitions. Secretary and Director, Higher Education representing the State were the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in all the cases/petitions. Petitioner in Review petition No. 136 of 2003 is Opposite Party No. 3 in the other two proceedings.2. For the sake of convenience, the teaching staff who have -applied for review are hereinafter described as Petitioners, the governing body of the educational institutions as Governing bod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2009)107CALLT610(NULL)
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by the Learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Malkangiri for confirmation of sentence of death imposed by him on accused Tangamalai Ramaswamy in Criminal Trial No. 51 of Criminal Appeal has been filed by both the accused persons against the order of conviction passed against the Appellant No. 1 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to death and further convicting him for commission of offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000. Appellant No. 2 has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 201/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000.2. Case of the prosecution os revealed from the F.I.R. is that O. Jairai (P.W.13) is the brother of the deceased and resident of Tamil Nadu. He lodged an information before the O.I.C. Kalimel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT428
S.C. Parija, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the letter dated 18.12.2006 of the State Government in the Excise Department, directing shifting of Pedagadi IMFL 'OFF' shop of Mayurbhanj district, Notice No. 378, dated 7.3.2007 issued by the Collector, Mayurbhanj, under Section 26-A of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act (herein after referred to as the 'Act') and Public Notice in Form 'A' for grant of IMFL 'OFF' shop (shifting proposal) from Pedagadi Grama Panchayat to Nuasahi Grama Panchayat within the Kaptipada Block for the year 2007-08.2. The contention of the Petitioner is that since he is a exiting licencee of IMFL 'OFF' shop at Kaptipada Block in the district of Mayurbhanj with monthly licence fee of Rs. 49,360/- for the year 2007-08, it is unreasonable to grant another IMFL 'OFF' shop licence at Nuasahi within the area of the Petitioner's shop with monthly licence fee of Rs. 10 ,000/- during the subsistence of the Petitioner's licence which is valid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT113
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 against the Judgment dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Learned Addl. District Judge-M.A.C.T., Jeypore (hereinafter called, the 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 69/2004 (M.J.C. Case No. 143/2000 of the District Judge, Jeypore).2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company appear today. Despite service of notice no one appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2 the owner of the vehicle.3. The case of the claimant-Respondent No. 1 was that on dated 4.7.2000 at about 7 A.M. while he was performing his duty as labourer in a tractor and was proceeding from Pokhnaguda to Sargiguda, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, the tractor was capsized. As a result of said accident the claimant-Respondent No. 1 sustained multiple bleeding injuries and fracture injury on his rib. After such accident he was shifted to Kotpad hospital for treatment and subsequently shifted to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR744
S.C. Parija, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19.06.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 550 of 2006, taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section 160 I.P.C.The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the allegations made in the F.I.R. nor the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation reveal that there was any fight so as to constitute the offence of 'affray', as required under Section 160 I.P.C. and therefore, the initiation of criminal proceeding against them should be quashed. The petitioners further submit that the petitioner No. 2 is a school teacher and the petitioner No. 1 is a respected person of the society and the continuance of the criminal proceeding is baund to cause harassment and serious prejudice to them.2. The brief fact of the case is that a divorce case bearing C.P. No. 787 of 2005 was pending before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(3)ARBLR158(Orissa); 105(2008)CLT520
A.S. Naidu, J.1 The Order Dated December 18, 2007 passed by the District Judge, Cuttack in Arbitration Petition No. 207 of 2007 is assailed in this appeal filed under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Appellant was the Petitioner before the Court below and it had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking an order of injunction restraining the Respondent, which was Opposite Party before the Court below, from interfering with or disturbing in the right of the Appellant in carrying on its business, in terms of an agreement dated December 14, 2001 entered into between the parties, until adjudication of the dispute by an Arbitral Tribunal.3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts necessary for appreciating the respective cases of the parties are as follows:The Appellant a private limited company commonly known as M/s. Mitra S.K. Pvt. Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as ' MSK') was incorporated in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR604
ORDER1. Heard Dr. A.K. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr B.K. Dash, learned Counsel for the O.Ps. The petitioners being fifty-five in number who are working as Technicians under the Orissa Renewable Energy Development Agency (in short, 'OREDA') have filed this writ application with a prayer to direct the O.Ps. to create adequate promotional avenues for them2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners joined the services under the establishment of OREDA as Technicians during the period between 1984 and 1986. Petitioner Nos. 1, 27, 35, 37 and 51 came from the Agricultural Department of the State Government on deputation and were later on permanently absorbed as Technicians on 1.5.1984. Since the date of their joining, the petitioners have been working as such and as there was no promotional avenue available for them, they filed the present writ application for the relief indicated above.3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the O.Ps., wherein the eng...
Tag this Judgment!