Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-08-2002
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT239; 2002(I)OLR379
P. K. Tripathy, J.1. Appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo R. I. for ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kamakshyanagar as per the impugned judgment delivered in Sessions Trial No. 17-D/4 of 1989. That order of conviction and sentence is under Challenge in this appeal.2. According to the prosecution, on 19.10.1988, on receipt of information from the Excise Constable Akshya Kumar Mohapatra (P.W. 2) the S.I. of Excise, Kamakshyanagar namely Kasinath Biswal (P.W. 1) conducted a raid of the betel shop situated at the out-skirt of village Khokasa under Kamakshyanagar P.S.. Accused was then in that shop. On search, 100 gms. of non-duty paid Ganja was recovered from a 'tin-dibba' and 5 gms. of contraband opium from a 'Zarda-Dibba'. The same was seized in presence of the excise staff and two independent witnesses namely Hata Kishore Khunt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-29-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Ori73
A.S. Naidu, J.1. 'Does law permit a person to retain a thing done contrary to an order of restraint passed by a Court?' is the question which is posed in this Civil Review.2. The undisputed facts are that the opposite party as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 73 of 1985 in the Court of the then Civil Judge, redesignated as the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaipur praying for partition of the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. Along with the plaint, a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed praying to restrain the defendants and others from constructing any new house over the suit properties appertaining to Khata No. 327, plot. No. 1748 and plot No. 1878 in Mouza Nahana, P. S. Binjharpur, District-Cuttack. The said petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 74 of 1985. The learned trial Court by order dated 16th May, 1985 passed an order of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction over the suit l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-08-2002
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR36
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This application under Section 482. Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 23.7.1998 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 739/1994 framing charge for commission of offence under Section 9-B of the Indian Explosives Act as well as under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.5.1994 from the house of the petitioner one gupti, one gun, one small knife, three numbers of parsuram farsa, two numbers of tenta, two iron rods, one sword, some live bombs, white powder, red powder, fishing net, etc. were recovered and seized. Pursuant to such-seizure, the aforesaid G. R. Case was registered for commission of offence under Section 9-B of the Indian Explosives Act as well as under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. On 5.5.1997 when the matter was taken up for framing of charge, an application was filed by the petitioner to discharge him on the ground that no offence is made out even the seizure of the artic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-21-2002
Reported in : 2002(I)OLR522
P.C. Naik, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal has referred for the opinion of this Court, the following question of law :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Sales Tax Tribunal is correct to hold that glass sheets do not fall under the entry 38 or 40 as the case may be of the schedule of goods taxable on the point of sale in view of the ratio of the Orissa High Court judgment rendered in Shantilal Kalidas case (42 STC P-9) ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1984- 85. Admittedly, the dealer-opp. party carried on business in glass, mirror, straw board etc. at Puri. During the period in question the opp. party, who is a registered dealer had collected tax at 12% on the sale of glass sheets and paid tax at that rate on the turnover of glass sheet. However, in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri the dealer contended that it had wrongly collected and paid tax at 12% on the sale of glass sheet whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-12-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Ori89; 2003(I)OLR385
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order dated 29-6-2002 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), 1st Court, Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 196 of 2002 holding that he has Jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the present opposite party No. 1 as the plaintiff,2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that marriage between the present petitioner and opposite party No. 1 was solemnised on 10-2-1995 as per Hindu rites and customs whereafter they lived as husband and wife in the house of the petitioner's father, i.e. opposite party No. 2. On 4-10-2001, a deed of family settlement was executed between the petitioner and his father, opposite party No. 2 to the effect that the petitioner would relinquish all his right, title, interest and possession over the residential house of opposite party No. 2, but the petitioner would be allowed to stay in the said residential house till the end of April2002. after which he will have his separate residence and opposite party No. 2 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-01-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Ori93
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner was a lawyer practising in the Rourkela Bar. In response to an advertisement, he applied for the post of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela. By a notification dated 30-9-2000 of the Government of Orissa, Food, Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department and by a letter dated 30-9-2000 of the said department of the Government of Orissa, the petitioner was appointed as President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela. He assumed charge as President of District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela and started working as such. By another order dated 24-11-2000 of the Government of Orissa, Food, Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department, the petitioner was appointed as President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-I in addition to his own duties as President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela. One Shri Ashwini Kumar Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-25-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Ori81
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Indian Bank as Plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 159 of 1977 for recovery of Rs. 3,11,500.43 with interest pendente lite and future and for other ancillary reliefs based on a Demand Promissory Note coupted with a deed of mortgage and other collateral documents duly executed by the defendants in favour of the Bank.2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the facts averred in the plaint which are necessary for effectual adjudication are :--Defendant No. 1, a Private Limited Company of which defendants 2 to 5 are the Directors, approached the plaintiff, which is a Nationalised Bank, for a cash credit loan in the year 1959. After examining the viability, the plaintiff-Bank agreed to advance a cash-credit loan to a tune of Rs. 9 lakhs to the defendants. As collateral security, defendant No. 1-Company mortgaged all its assets to the Bank and created a charge in accordance with Sections 125 to 130 of theCompanies Act on July 2, I960. Defendants 2 to 5 executed a Demand Promisso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-05-2002
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT550
P.K. Patra, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 15.12.90 passed by Shri B. K. Patnaik, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial No. 41/267 of 1989 convicting the thirteen appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') under Sections 302/149/148/326 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and under Section 9-B of the Indian Explosive Act and sentencing accused persons Nos. 1 and 2 to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and the other eleven accused persons to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. All the aforesaid thirteen accused persons have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 148 IPC; accused persons Nos. 4, 7, 9, 11 and 12 have further been convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; and accused persons Nos. 1, 2 and 11 have also been convicted under Section...
Tag this Judgment!