ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

116 present case, the witness whom the petitioner wants to recall for re-cross examination was earlier after closure of his examination-in-chief and crossexamination recalled as per direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4721 of 2009 and on such recall the said witness was cross-examined at length on the ground of lapse and change of counsel. If successive applications are filed by a party on the same plea, the trial court has to deal with the same being in a position to infer the intension of the party appearing before it. It is well settled that a little difference in the facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in precedential value of a decision. Judicial utterances are SOUBHAGYA MOHANTY -V- H. MOHANTY [S.PANDA,J.] made in setting up of the facts of a particular case. Therefore, the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned order passed by the trial court. Hence, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 372 SANJU PANDA,J. M/S.D.T.M. CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. -V- CAPT. P.K.SRIVASTAVA & ANR.* FEBRUARY 11,2010. 117 ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (ACT NO.26 OF 1996) – SEC.9,37. Application U/s. 9 of the Act before the District Judge, Puri seeking interim relief – Clause 19.3 of the agreement provides venue of the arbitration shall be at Mumbai –Learned District Judge returned the application for presentation in proper Court at Mumbai – No order allowing or refusing the prayer – Not appellable U/s. 37 (1) of the Act – Writ petition is maintainable. However since the word “only” or “ouster” has not been used in the said Clause of the agreement the jurisdiction of the Court at Puri is not ousted – Held, there is error in the impugned order which is set aside – Matter remanded to the learned District Judge, Puri to consider the application on merit. (Para 11 & 12) Case law Relied on: 2006 (1) OLR 40 : ( Mr.Bhaskar Bhatt & Ors.-V-M/s.Crescent Art Times Pvt.Ltd.) Case laws Referred to: 1.AIR 2002 SC 1432 : (Bhatia International -V-Bulk Trading S.A. & Anr.). 2.AIR 2000 SC 1886 : (P.Anand Gajapathi Raju & Ors.-V- P.V.G.Raju (died) & Ors.). 3.AIR 1989 SC 1239 : (A.B.C.Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.-V- A.P.Agencies,Salem). 4.AIR 1971 SC 740 : ( Hakam Singh -V- Gammon (India) Ltd.). 5.2010 (1) Civil L.J.79 : (Balaji Coke Industry Pvt. -V- M/s.Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj)Pvt. Ltd.). 6.AIR 2006 SC 3426 : ( Percept D’ Mark (India) Pvt. -V-Zaheer Khan & Anr.) For Petitioner – M/s.S.K.Dash, A.K.Otta, S.Dash, B.P.Dhal & Mrs.A.Dalasamanta.
Page 1 and 2:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 271 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 3 and 4:
SK.IBRAHIM -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.K
Page 5 and 6:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 275 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 7 and 8:
MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA ju
Page 9 and 10:
23 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 285 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 17 and 18:
NITYANANDA BEHERA -V- STATE [S.C.PA
Page 19 and 20:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 289 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 21 and 22:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 23 and 24:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 25 and 26:
39 13. In the case of P. J. Chacko
Page 27 and 28:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 297 L.MOHAPATRA
Page 29 and 30:
43 Court in the case of M/s. Thunga
Page 31 and 32:
45 and (c) on account of some mista
Page 33 and 34:
“ The High Court held that the re
Page 35 and 36:
49 Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Page 37 and 38:
The copy of the Station Diary dt.24
Page 39 and 40:
53 accordingly, investigation was t
Page 41 and 42:
55 lying dead with ligature mark on
Page 43 and 44:
11.40(1974) CLT.977 : (Sahadeb Patn
Page 45 and 46:
comparative statement showing perfo
Page 47 and 48:
61 construed according to the plain
Page 49 and 50:
63 11. This Court in Sahadeb Pattna
Page 51 and 52: ules and regulations h) Ability to
Page 53 and 54: INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 59 and 60: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 328 A.S.NAIDU,J
Page 63 and 64: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 77 and 78: 91 impression of bias and favourtis
Page 79 and 80: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 348 M.M.DAS,J.
Page 81 and 82: 95 hearing the appeal set aside the
Page 83 and 84: 97 and the parties to the lease are
Page 85 and 86: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 354 R.N.BISWAL,
Page 87 and 88: 101 cargo, which was unfit for ship
Page 89 and 90: 103 This Section stipulates that ap
Page 91 and 92: 105 Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of
Page 93 and 94: 107 further, in the meantime also t
Page 95 and 96: 109 “…… The High Court was of
Page 97 and 98: 111 learned Subordinate Judge on th
Page 99 and 100: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 368 SANJU PANDA
Page 101: 115 OLR 791 (Sk. Mustafa and anothe
Page 105 and 106: 119 Rs. 71,74,451/- for repair of t
Page 107 and 108: 121 reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (A
Page 109 and 110: 123 already quoted and the aforesai
Page 111 and 112: 125 offending truck. The further ca
Page 113 and 114: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 382 B.P.RAY,J.
Page 115 and 116: 129 to any person, or to consent th
Page 117 and 118: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 386 B.P.RAY, J.
Page 119 and 120: 133 testimony of the victim in a ca
Page 121 and 122: 135 relationship of the appellant w
Page 123 and 124: 137 Officer,Bangalore). 3.AIR 1996
Page 125 and 126: 139 restored, only to avoid the ord
Page 127 and 128: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 396 141 B.K.PAT
Page 129 and 130: 143 4.12.1997. The vehicle was insu
Page 131 and 132: 145 vehicle and insurance policy tr
Page 133 and 134: 147 place from the date of sale whe
Page 135 and 136: 149 deemed to have issued to the in
Page 137 and 138: 151 6. On an analysis of Sections 9
Page 139 and 140: 153 the policy purports to cover in
Page 141 and 142: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 410 B.K.NAYAK,
Page 143 and 144: 157 “….. The decision in the ca
Page 145 and 146: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 414 S.K.MISHRA,
Page 147 and 148: 161 the imposition of fine of Rs.50
Page 149 and 150: 163 overtuous regarding sex. Theref
Page 151 and 152: 165 6. The learned trial court, aft
Page 153 and 154:
167 The Opposite parties 2 to 11 ar
Page 155 and 156:
169 3. It is undisputed at this sta
Page 157:
shall dispose of the application on
show all

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?