Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-04-2009
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR177
S.K. Mishra, J.1. On consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, the criminal revisions are taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.2. In these Criminal Revisions, petitioners assail the orders passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on 25.08.2006 in I.C.C. No. 901 of 2006 and in I.C.C. No. 902 of 2006, whereby he rejected the petition filed by the complainant to condone the delay in filing the complain case under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Limitation Act', read with Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Brief fact of the case of the complainant-petitioner is that Orissa Rural Housing and Development Corporation Ltd. had advanced the house-building loan to the accused-opposite party. There was an outstanding dues against the accused, for which he issued two account payee cheques of Rs. 9,40,000/- each, on 28.10.2005 in favour of the complainant-Company drawn on Bank of Baro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-05-2009
Reported in : AIR2010Ori41
L.K. Mishra, J.1. The wife-appellant has challenged the judgment of the Judge, Family Court dated 21 -9-2001 in Civil Proceeding No. 85 of 1998 by which he annulled the marriage of the parties under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. Sidhartha Pandit, the husband (the respondent herein) filed the petition for annulment of the marriage on the ground that at the time of marriage the wife was suffering from recurrent attacks of epilepsy. The marriage of the parties took place on 5-2-1998 according to the Hindu rites and customs. On 13-1-1998 at about 3.00 A. M. the husband woke up and found the wife having an epileptic attack. She had lost her sense and was salivating. One Dr. Bankim Patnaik, who was neighbour of the husband was called and on examination found the wife to be suffering from severe attack of epilepsy. He prescribed medicines and also advised to consult a Neurologist. On the next day morning on enquiry she disclosed that she was subjected to intermittent attack of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-12-2009
Reported in : 2009(II)OLR86
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both parties.2. Plaintiff is the writ petitioner. Having lost his case with a prayer to condone the delay of two and half years in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 9, CPC for restoration of the suit for eviction which he filed and which he left for dismissal for default. True it is, the opposite party-defendant was also recalcitrant inasmuch as he never appeared and filed a written statement on his behalf. It is equally true that between 24.2.1998 and 20.8.1998 the defendant was given an opportunity of filing a written statement which he had not availed. The case happened to get transferred on 4.9.2004 fixing the date for appearance and ex parte hearing on 18.11.2004. Since the writ petitioner-plaintiff was absent both on 18.11.2004 and subsequently adjourned date on 29.1.2005 and the case was dismissed for default he preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 9, CPC with an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-05-2009
Reported in : (2009)107CALLT529(NULL)
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been fled for quashing the Order Dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure, - 4) by which the application for withdrawal of resignation of the Petitioner has been rejected by the District Judge, Kandamal.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner while working as Head Clerk under the administrative control of the District Judge, Kandamal submitted resignation letter dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure -1) requesting the appointing authority to accept it with immediate effect. The appointing authority accepted the resignation vide Order Dated 2.12.2006 with a stipulation that the Petitioner would retire with effect from 28.2.2007. Petitioner submitted an application dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure - 3) withdrawing the said resignation as the same was to become effective from 28.2.2007. However, the said application has been rejected vide Order Dated 15.1.2007. Hence this Writ Petition.3. Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-08-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Ori147; 107(2009)CLT250; 2009(II)OLR201
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the Judgment and order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') in O.A. Nos. 29 of 2006 and for quashing of the auction sale by Opposite Party No. 1-Bank in pursuance of publication of notice dated 10.11.2005.FACTUAL MATRIX:2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Petitioner No. 1 had availed a cash credit loan to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 (two lakhs) in the year 1997 from the Opposite Party-Bank to run its business. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors by securitizirtg their assets pertaining to Sabak Plot No. 2, Sabak Khata No. 94 corresponding to Hal Plot No. 2, Khata Nos. 100 of Mouza, Baramunda.3. Petitioner No. 1 could not repay the loan as per the terms incorporated in the agreement. Therefore, Opposite Party -Bank issued a notice dated 24.5.2004 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction .of the Financial Assets and Enforcement o...
Tag this Judgment!