Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1969Ori268; 35(1969)CLT411; 1969CriLJ1414
ORDERS.K. Ray, J. 1. This is an application seeking to review the operative part of the judgment of this Court dated 23th November, 1967, passed in Cr. Revn. No. 298/66. The operative part of the judgment contained in its last paragraph runs as follows: 'Learned counsel for the petitioner however, states that the accused has already undergone a part of the substantive sentence and that he had had sufficient harassment since the prosecution was launched. While, therefore, maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420, I. P. C., I would reduce his substantive sentence to the period already undergone, and maintain the sentence of fine, and with this modification in the sentence, the revision is dismissed.'2. Cr. Revision No. 298/66 was filed by the accused-opposite-party against the confirming order of conviction and sentence dated 28-4-66 passed by Sri S.K. Patra, Sessions Judge of Puri by which he was convicted under Section 420 IPC., and sentenced to R. I. for two mont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori148
S. Barman, J.1. The defendants are the appellants before us. In May 1950, the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants alleging that they were trespas ers on the suit land. In September, 1951, there was a decree for ejectment of the defendants. Against the said decree, seven defendants appealed. During the pendency of the appeal one of the defendants being defendant No. 6 Chintamani Paital, died leaving him surviving his heirs and legal representatives. Admittedly, there was no substitution of the deceased's heirs and legal representatives.2. The only question for consideration on these facts, briefly stated above, is whether it was a case of partial or total abatement.3. It appears from the frame of the suit, as in the plaint, that it was a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title. The prayers in paragraph 10 of the plaint are as follows:'(a) that it be declared that the plaintiff No. 1 through the trustees plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 has title to the suit lands and that the def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1981Ori70; 51(1981)CLT371
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. Each of the petitioners was a registered Homoeopathic practitioner within the meaning of Section 29 of the Orissa Homoeopathic Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act) and was given appointment as doctor for a term in a dispensary as would appear from the order of appointment appended to the respective writ applications. The term of appointment was extended by subsequent orders from time to time, but each of them was later informed that service was being terminated from a specified date. The writ applications have been filed on the footing that the termination was under a misapprehension that the petitioners were not qualified to continue as doctors in dispensaries in view of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (Act 59 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act), and though similarly placed doctors continued in service and have even been absorbed as regular employees under the State Government, the petitioners have been discriminated again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 104(2007)CLT763; (2008)ILLJ452Ori
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Management of Paradip Port-Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'PPT') challenging the Judgment dated 23.7.2004 passed by a Learned Judge of the writ Court in W.P. (C) No. 6393 of 2003. By the said Judgment the Learned Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by PPT challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal.An the Writ Petition PPT challenged the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 112 of 2001. Though three items of dispute were involved in the reference, PPT's challenge was confined to one item. The said item of dispute is as follows:Whether, the claim of the Union regarding 40 workers as per list enclosed should be treated as regular workers of Paradip Port Trust and paid regular wages at par with the similar worker of Paradip Port Trust Management. If so, to what relief the workers are entitled and from which date2. The Learned Judge h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1999(I)OLR46
P.C. Misra, J.1. Appellants in this appeal were plaintiffs in a suit (O.S. No. 126/75-1) in the Court of Munsif, Bhadrak. The suit was dismissed on merits by judgment dated 12.12.1977 passed by the learned trial Court against which they preferred Title Appeal No. 2/78 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak. The said appeal was posted to 3.4.1980 for hearing on which day the Advocate appearing for the appellants filed an application praying for an adjournment on the ground of illness of their Advocate of Cuttack, who had been engaged to argue the appeal. The appeal was adjourned to 7.5.1980 on which day the appellants also applied for adjournment on the very same stand. The court reluctantly allowed adjournment on payment of cost of Rs. 100/- and the appeal was posted to 9.5.1980 for hearing. On that day also adjournment was applied on the ground of continuous illness of Advocate of Cuttack. The learned lower Appellate Court did not allow any further adjournment and dismissed the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori73
Patra, J.1. This is an appeal against the appellate judgment of R.N. Misra, J. in First Appeal No. 63 of 1964 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jey-pore in a suit for recovery of possession of the plaint 'A' schedule properties, mesne profits and cancellation of the Deed of Exchange Ext. A dated 26-3-1957.2. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are sons of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs constitute a joint family and are the owners in possession of the plaint A schedule lands measuring A.22.36 decs. situated in mouza Barijhola. Out of these Lands, they were in khas possession of plot Nos. 80, 87, 90 and 98 with an area of 6.11 acres. The remaining lands bearing plot Nos. 292. 29-3 and 294 were with the the Jeypore Sugar Company, Limited under possessory mortgage for a period of 12 years commencing from 11-5-1955. One Rajguru family who are not parties to this litigation own lands in village Pitamahal which was an inam village. That inam estate was abolished under the Ori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK O.J.C. Nos. 8819 and 6311 of 2000 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------In O.J.C. No.8819 of 2000 Sk. Abdul Ahad, aged about 31 years, S/o. Sk. Abdul Samed, resident of At: Ramkapur, P.O. Sukleswar, P.S. Mahanga, District: Cuttack Petitioner -VersusState of Orissa and others For Petitioner Opp. Parties : M/s. Jagabandhu Sahoo, S.K. Mohanty & P.K. Das For Opp. Parties : Mr. Ashok Mohanty Advocate General [For O.P. Nos.1,2,3 and 5]. M/s. R.K. Mohanty D.K. Mohanty, P.K. Ratha, A.P. Bose, S.N. Biswal, P.K. Samantray, & J.K. Kanungo, [For O.P. No.4]. In O.J.C. No.6311 of 2000 Sri Dibya Keshari Deo, aged about 36 years, S/o. Sri Ram Chandra Deo, At: Rajabagicha, P.O. Tala Telengabazar, P.S. Purighat, Dist: Cuttack Petitioner -VersusState of Odisha and others For Petitioner Opp. Parties : For Opp. Parties : M/s. G.N. Pattnaik & Y.S.P. Babu, Mr. Ashok Mohanty Advocate General [For O.P. Nos.1 to 4]. 2 --------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK O.J.C. Nos. 8819 and 6311 of 2000 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------In O.J.C. No.8819 of 2000 Sk. Abdul Ahad, aged about 31 years, S/o. Sk. Abdul Samed, resident of At: Ramkapur, P.O. Sukleswar, P.S. Mahanga, District: Cuttack Petitioner -VersusState of Orissa and others For Petitioner Opp. Parties : M/s. Jagabandhu Sahoo, S.K. Mohanty & P.K. Das For Opp. Parties : Mr. Ashok Mohanty Advocate General [For O.P. Nos.1,2,3 and 5]. M/s. R.K. Mohanty D.K. Mohanty, P.K. Ratha, A.P. Bose, S.N. Biswal, P.K. Samantray, & J.K. Kanungo, [For O.P. No.4]. In O.J.C. No.6311 of 2000 Sri Dibya Keshari Deo, aged about 36 years, S/o. Sri Ram Chandra Deo, At: Rajabagicha, P.O. Tala Telengabazar, P.S. Purighat, Dist: Cuttack Petitioner -VersusState of Odisha and others For Petitioner Opp. Parties : For Opp. Parties : M/s. G.N. Pattnaik & Y.S.P. Babu, Mr. Ashok Mohanty Advocate General [For O.P. Nos.1 to 4]. 2 --------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1976Ori52
S.K. Ray, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal from the confirming decision of a single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit, under Article 4 of Orissa High Court Order 1948, read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.2. The appellant filed his suit in the court of the Sub-Judge, Puri for a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee of Radhaballav Math with all its endowments located in the town of Puri being the nominated successor of the late Mahant Shri Radhacharan Das who died in 1963.Undisputedly, Radhaballav Math is an institution of Numbark cult. Its last Mahant was Radhacharan Das who was recognised by all public authorities including defendant No. 1, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner). The plaintiff alleges that the late Mahant validly initiated him as his Chela according to customary and usual religious rites prevailing at the Math and the sect to which the institution belonged, and also exe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2006(II)OLR344
ORDER1. Heard further argument on the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal as the preliminary issue and the same is decided in the following manner.2. Before dealing with that point of law, we may indicate that the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed challenging to the judgment delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in F.A.O. No. 270 of 2003. That was an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C') against the order granting temporary injunction to the plaintiffs-respondents under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C, vide Interim Application No. 12 of 2003 arising in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2003 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rairangpur. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has confirmed to that order of injunction and in the result dismissed the appeal. As against that judgment, this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.3. At the outset, Mr. Indrajit Mohanty, learned Counsel appe...
Tag this Judgment!