Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK W.A. No.173 of 2014 In the matter of an appeal under the letters patent arising out of the decision dated 9.4.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.3090 of 2013 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. ---------- Raghunath Jagadala Union of India & another Versus .. Appellant Respondents. For appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Rout. For respondents : M/s. A.Bose, (Asst. Solicitor General) . ---------P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY AND HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRADIP MOHANTY -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing : 08.08.2014 Date of Judgment : 14.08.2014 AMITAVA ROY, C.J.The appellant-petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 9.4.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.3090 of 2013 rejecting the appellant-writ petitioners assailment of the norm of eligibility pertaining to size of the godown land to be offered for selection for LPG distributorship in the process involved.2. We have heard learned counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
W.P.(C) No.8795 of 2008 21. 26.7.2014 In this writ petition, the petitioner has made prayer to declare the action of the opposite parties who represent State Bank of India in rejecting the petitioners claim for extending the benefit of ex-gratia compensation to be illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to the provisions of the relevant scheme; and to direct the opposite parties to pay ex-gratia amount immediately. Petitioners husband late Purna Chandra Patnaik while working as Senior Assistant in the State Bank of India, Koraput Branch died in harness on 25.1.2004 leaving behind his wife-the petitioner, and two daughters. In accordance with the provisions of the scheme prevailing during that period, the petitioner filed application dated 14.6.2004 for compassionate appointment. Petitioners case is that when the application for compassionate appointment was still pending consideration, State Bank of India introduced a new scheme in the name and style of The Scheme for Payment of Ex-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
F.A.O. NO.243 OF 2013 Misc. Case Nos.537 & 538 of 2014 18. 18.07.2014 Misc. Case No.537 of 2014 is with a prayer to modify/clarify the judgment dated 16.5.2014 which has been passed in F.A.O. No.243 of 2013 dismissing the F.A.O. Since the appellants therein have taken the stand that the construction of a statue of Lord Hanuman being over Plot No.457 under Khata No.619 of Mouza Chandrasekharpur which is No.covered under the plaint schedule, this Court observed in the said judgment that if the defendants are going to install the statue on a plot which is No.included in the plaint schedule, then the interim injunction granted against them would have no operation as against such construction work as they could very well proceed construction on a piece of land which is No.part and parcel of the suit land. On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent/petitioner it is alleged that after passing of the judgment with the aforesaid observation the defendants-appellants/O.Ps. have been able to convince ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK JAIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.213 OF 2000 Arising out of Judgment dated 26.8.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in Sessions Trial No.2-A of 1989. --------------Jasobanta Sahu Appellant -versusState of Orissa Respondent For appellants : Mrs. Usharani Padhi For respondent : Mr. B.P. Pradhan (Addl. Government Advocate) --------------Date of Judgment: 17.07.2014 ----------------- P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI JUSTICE PRADIP MOHANTY AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE BISWAJIT MOHANTY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Biswajit Mohanty, J.The present Jail Criminal Appeal has a chequred history. Sessions Trial No.2-A of 1989 from out of which the present Jail Criminal Appeal arises was initially disposed of vide judgment dated 24.8.1991 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, who while acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 302, IPC, convicted the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK. W.P(C) No.9733 of 2014 In the matter of application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------M/s. Life Line Medical Store (Day & Night) Petitioner -versusAll India Institute of Medical Science, Bhubaneswar . Opp.parties For Petitioner : M/s. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Mr. R.N.Parija, Mr. A.K.Rout, Mr. S.K.Patnaik, Mr. A.Behera and Mr. P.K.Sahoo For Opp.Parties : M/s. S.D.Das,Asst.Solicitor General of India, Miss. Sonita Biswal (Oppsite Parties) M/s.A.K.Choudhury and (Interveners), Mr.K.K.Das P R E S E N T: THE HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEFJUSTICE MR.PRADIP MOHANTY AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT MOHANTY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Judgment: 17.07.2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biswajit Mohanty,J.The present writ application has been filed for quashing of order under Annexure-I so far as it rela...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK O.J.C. Nos.14184 of 1999 & 12616 of 2001 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------In O.J.C. No.14184 of 1999 The Management of State Bank of India . Petitioner . Opp. Parties -VersusThe Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa & Another For Petitioner : M/s. P.V.Ramdas & P.V.Balakrishna For Opp. Party No.1 : None. For Opp. Party No.2 : M/s. S.K.Pattanaik & U.C.Mohanty. In O.J.C. No.12616 of 2001 Umacharan Behera . Petitioner . Opp. Parties -VersusState Bank of India & Another For Petitioner : M/s. S.K.Pattanaik & U.C.Mohanty. For Opp. Party No.1 : M/s. P.V.Ramdas & P.V.Balakrishna For Opp. Party No.2 : None. 2 --------------P R E S E N T: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE INDRAJIT MAHANTY. Date of Judgment: 15.07.2014 I. Mahanty, J.On the consent of the learned counsels representing the respective parties, both the writ applications noted hereinabove are taken up together for hearing and disposed o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK O.J.C. Nos.14184 of 1999 & 12616 of 2001 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------In O.J.C. No.14184 of 1999 The Management of State Bank of India . Petitioner . Opp. Parties -VersusThe Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa & Another For Petitioner : M/s. P.V.Ramdas & P.V.Balakrishna For Opp. Party No.1 : None. For Opp. Party No.2 : M/s. S.K.Pattanaik & U.C.Mohanty. In O.J.C. No.12616 of 2001 Umacharan Behera . Petitioner . Opp. Parties -VersusState Bank of India & Another For Petitioner : M/s. S.K.Pattanaik & U.C.Mohanty. For Opp. Party No.1 : M/s. P.V.Ramdas & P.V.Balakrishna For Opp. Party No.2 : None. 2 --------------P R E S E N T: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE INDRAJIT MAHANTY. Date of Judgment: 15.07.2014 I. Mahanty, J.On the consent of the learned counsels representing the respective parties, both the writ applications noted hereinabove are taken up together for hearing and disposed o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
W.P.(C). No.10457 of 2014 Present : Mr. Jayant Das, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Advocate General for the State Mr. B.N.Rath, Advocate for opposite party no.2. 04. 20.06.2014 This petition by way of PIL seeks direction to implement the decision of the Jagannath Temple Managing Committee constituted under the provisions of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 (the Act) on the issue of climbing the chariots during Car Festival, 2014.2. The case set out in the petition is that as per the traditions of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri, Rath Yatra (Car Festival) is held every year when the presiding deities leave the Shrimandir premises and journey to the Sri Gundicha temple on the Bada Danda in chariots or rathas specially constructed for the purpose which are pulled by devotees using ropes. The ritual culminates with the return of the deities to Shrimandir known as Bahuda Yatra. A question arose as to whether it was permissible for the devotees to climb atop the Rathas (cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
W.A.No.206 of 2014 BEFORE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.A.K.GOEL HONBLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH 03. For the Appellant : Mr.D.Mishra, Advocate. For the respondent Nos.1 to 7 : Mr.R.K.Mohapatra, Govt. Advocate. 18.06.2014 ORDER (Dr. A.K.Rath, J.) Challenge is made to the orders dated 5.5.2014 and 25.3.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in RVWPET No.61 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.18941 of 2008 respectively. BKB Respondent no.9 filed W.P.(C) No.18941 of 2008 challenging, inter alia, the selection of the appellant as Grama Rojagar Sevak of Solopata Gram Panchayat with a further prayer to direct the Collector, Nayagarh and the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Nayagarh to consider his candidature for the said post. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that he secured highest marks amongst the candidates. It is further submitted that no letter was sent by the authority to him for verification of the certificates. In the counter affidavit filed by the contesting oppos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK MISC. APPEAL NO.491 of 1993 _______________________________________________ In the matter of an application under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. -------------Marketing Manager, The Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and another Appellants Respondent -VersusM/s. L.M.Hati & Co. For Appellants : M/s. Ganeshwar Rath, P.K.Mohapatra, A.K.Patnaik, J.C.Sahoo & S.Mishra. For Respondent : M/s. K.N.Jena, D.K.Mohapatra, P.K.Jena & R.Rath. PRESENT: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE INDRAJIT MAHANTY Date of judgment : 18.06.2014 I. Mahanty, J.This appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking to challenge a decree dated 15.05.1993 passed by the learned SubJudge, Jagatsinghpur in T.S. No.194 of 1992 making an arbitral award rule of the court. 2 2. The impugned decree was passed in the suit whereby, the plaintiff-respondent had prayed to make an award dated 26.09.1992 passed by the sole arbitrator rule of the court with costs and interest.3. The case of the plaintiff-...
Tag this Judgment!