Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-16-1996
Reported in : 2(1996)ACC566
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present application for review of the order dated 2.8.1993 passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 1389 of 1993 is taken up for final disposal after hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. For proper appreciation and by way of ready reference, the order sought to be reviewed is quoted hereinbelow:In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 17, as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Coal Fields Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1371, and in the absence of any material to establish that the vehicles had been manufactured for use only in the factory or enclosed premises, dumper must be held to be a motor vehicle and liable to be registered under Motor Vehicles Act. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity with the impugned decision of the Transport Authority so as to be interfered with by this Court.The writ application is dismissed accordingl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-15-1996
Reported in : AIR1996Ori220
Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question decision taken by the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government to grant licence for opening of a twenty-four hours day and night medical store inside Agarpada Community Health Centre in favour of opposite party No. 5. Said opposite party was selected on the basis of a recommendation made by the concerned Advisory Committee on 22-8-1994. Basic grievance of petitioner is that opposite party No. 6 is the husband of opposite party No. 5 and he played a vital role in changing the norms of selection and participated in the process of selection of his wife.2. Background facts as projected by the petitioner are essentially as follows:Government in Health and Family Welfare Department have prescribed guidelines of selection for opening medical stores in the campus of Medical College Hospitals/District Headquarters Hospitals and Hospitals equivalent to them and Sub-Divisional Hospitals of the State. In its circular dated 10-7-1991, G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-27-1996
Reported in : 1997(I)OLR116
A. Pasayat, J.1. These two appeals are inter-linked being directed against the same judgment of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack though the grounds of challenge are different. Although the pivotal question posed appears to be simple, it presents some complexities. In essence the dispute is whether there is scope for substitution in place of deceased husband after an ex parte decision is taken in a proceeding for judicial separation or divorce. Certaion other disputes have been raised, with which we shall deal infra.2. The dispute has arisen in the following background :Sabita Behera alias Das (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1994 and respondent in Civil Appeal Nos. 23 of 1994) was married to Kishore Kumar Das (hereinafter referred to as 'Kishore') on 30-1-1990 according to Hindu rites and customs. An application seeking divorce was filed by Kishore, the husband under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Act') which was duly accepted on 15-11-1991 by allowi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-15-1996
Reported in : 83(1997)CLT440; 1997(I)OLR222
Dipak Misra, J. 1. Soundness of the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities under the provisions of Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act(in short, 'the Act') by Annexures 3,4 and 5 is called in question in the present writ application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner.After stating pleadings and contentions of counsel for both sides, it is held :5. From the analysis of the rival contentions it becomes beamingly clear that the sole controversy rests on the issue whether the order of settlement passed under the OEA Act would enure to the benefit of others if parties are governed by Mohammedan Law.6. Before we go to the different aspects of Mohammedan Law and the extension of benefit to a co-sharer we would like to ascertain whether there had been partition or the parties were in ' jointness. The Consolidation Officer in his order has observed as follows :'Opposite party Karim Khan states that the property is joi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jun-26-1996
Reported in : 82(1996)CLT188; [1998]94CompCas889(Orissa); 1996(II)OLR112
Dipak Misra, J.1. The correctness of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First Court, Cuttack, in Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 1996, arising out of T. S. No. 18 of 1996, refusing to restrain the opposite party therein from encashing the bank guarantee involved in the suit is called in question by the plaintiff-appellant in this appeal.2. The essential facts which need narration for the present appeal are as follows :The appellant-plaintiff, a proprietorship concern, was appointed as a consignee agent by respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1-company for their product, namely, sunflower refined oil for the entire State of Orissa with effect from September 3, 1994. In pursuance of the agreement for such appointment the plaintiff deposited the security deposit and furnished a bank guarantee, bearing No. 95-96/1, for an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs for one year commencing from April 28, 1995. As averred by the plaintiff, it was his responsibility to provide proper storage for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-04-1996
Reported in : 1997(I)OLR254
S. Chatterji, J.1.The present writ petition is at the instance of 41 students who appeared as private B. Ed. Examinees at U. N. College, Nalagaja Centre in the district of Mayurbhanj seeking reliefs as follows :'......issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to have a thorough probe into the system, method and actual conduct of B. Ed. Examination, 1995 to determine the petitioners in any way guilty of any misconduct either in process or in respect of answers written in the examination papers and find out if the petitioners deserve the punishment meted out to them by the University by the order in Annexure-1 and if necessary command the 0. P. N. 1 to restore the marks in all papers hereby cancelling illegal notification in Annexure-1 or in the alternative command the opposite parties to hold a fresh examination, if the Hon'ble Court feels as a part of the Annual Examination, 1995 without fees and issue other order/direction as will do complete justice to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-02-1996
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2776
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Some of the members of second party in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') initiated by the Executive Magistrate, Ranpur, numbered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 48 of 1994 have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code praying for quashing the proceeding.2. The petitioners have filed a copy of the notice served on petitioner No. 2 as Annexure-1 and contended that an order has been passed mechanically by the Executive Magistrate calling upon the second party members to show cause without explaining the substance of information and without furnishing a copy of the information. It is contended that the proceeding has been initiated without application of judicial mind and without making an inquiry into the matter. It is also contended that the notice which was served on petitioner No. 2 was a cyclostyled one and this indicates the lack of application of mind on the part of the Executive Magi...
Tag this Judgment!