ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ARTATRANA SWAIN -V- STATE OF ORISSA [A.S. NAIDU,J.] view that the Tribunal has not committed any error, consequently we are not inclined to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 76
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHANTY,J. MD.NOORULLAH SHAREEF -V- SENIOR POST MASTER,GPO,BUXIBAZAR,CTC-1* OCTOBER 29,2009. LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (ACT NO. 36 0F 1963)-SEC.5 Law is well settled that while considering the application of condonation of delay the Court should not take a pedantic approach but should take a pragmatic view and it is not necessary for the party seeking condonation of delay to explain each day of delay. In the present case, due to official process and for tracing out the file, the delay had occasioned – Held, the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in allowing the application – However the cost imposed by the appellate Court is modified from Rs.5000/- to Rs.20,000/-. (Para 5) Case laws Referred to:- 1. 2003(I) OLR (SC) 673 : (Shiv Shakti Coop.Housing Society, Nagpur -V- M/s. Swaraj Developers & Ors.) 2. 2008(I) OLR 235 : (Golam Mohammad & Anr.-V- Sk.Fakir & Ors.). 3. 2003(II) OLR 409 : (Sitaram @ Mahendra Ghosh -V-Sri Antaryami Mohapatra &18 Ors. etc.) 4. (2006)7 SCC.452 : (Vidyodaya Trust & Ors.-V-mohan Prasadr & Ors.). 5.2003 (Supp.)OLR 703 : (Narayan Dash -V- Gouranga Charan Dash & Ors, etc.). For Petitioner – M/s. P.K.Rath (I), S.Barik, S.M.Ali, D.Jena, M.Tola, R.Mahapatra & D.Maharana. For Opp.Party – Mr.S.K.Das, Central Government Counsel. *CRP NO.4 OF 2005. From the judgment dated 17.12.2004 passed by Sri C.R.Dash, Ad hoc Addl.District Judge (FTC-I), Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No.119 of 2002 reversing the order dated 02.09.2002 passed by Sri G.Pati, Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Ist Court, Cuttack in Misc.Case No.152 of 2000. PRADIP MOHANTY,J. In this Civil Revision, the petitioner challenges the judgment dated 17.12.2004 of the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (FTC-I), Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No. 119 of 2002 reversing the order dated 02.09.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ist Court, Cuttack rejecting an application filed under Order 9, Rule-13 C.P.C. registered as Misc. Case No.152 of 2000. 2. The brief fact of the case is that one Ashrafun Nisha Begum and her husband Md. Abdullah Sharif on 17.12.1984 had purchased jointly 16 numbers of National Savings Certificates amounting to Rs.80,000/- from the opposite party. They had made their sons, namely, Md. Nurullah Shariff and Md. Rahimtullah Shariff as nominees. After the death of Md. Abdullah 77
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: 25 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 13 and 14: 27 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
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 61: INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
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 and 102: 115 OLR 791 (Sk. Mustafa and anothe
Page 103 and 104: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 372 SANJU PANDA
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?