Color page for PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

Court
News
21
the accident took place was a public place within the definition of Section 2 (34) of the Act and the
insurer is liable to pay the compensation as awarded – Held, the impugned order directing the owner
to pay the compensation amount is set aside and the insurer is held liable to pay the same.
VISHAL RETAIL LTD. & ANR. -V- ACHHAR SINGH BHUMBER & ORS.
W.P.(C) NO.18033 OF 2010 (Dt.on 4.3.2011)
ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 – S.8(1) (2).
(S.C.Parija, J.)
Power to refer Parties to arbitration – Suit for realization of arrear rent – Memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between the parties – Under Clause 18 of the MOU parties have agreed upon that
either the dispute shall be referred to arbitration or Courts at Jeypore shall have the sole and exclusive
jurisdiction to try such dispute – Defendants-petitioners filed application U/s.8 (1) of the Act before filing
of written statement – Without pursuing such application they submitted and acquiesced to the jurisdiction
of the Court not only by filing written statement but also by participating in the trial by Cross-examining
P.W.1 – Conduct of the petitioners show that they have waived their right to invoke the arbitration Clause
since both the parties have participated in the trial and the Civil Court is equally efficacious in resolving
dispose between the parties – Held, it would not be proper to refer the parties to arbitration solely on
the ground that public policy encourages out of Court settlement of disputes.
SUSHANTA SEKHAR BANCHHOR -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.
W.P.(C ) NO.9647 OF 2010 (Dt. 08.03.2011)
(B.K.Patel, J.)
Service- Contractual Employment – Services of the contractual employee comes to an end on
completion of the period of contract – No order of termination is required in such type of employments
– When termination is attached with a stigma the Court may insist upon observance of principles of
natural justice.
In the present case the decision to disengage the petitioner and engage persons by way of
outsourcing is not a stigma and it being a pure policy decision of the State Government the same can
not be interfered with in the writ petition.
A. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – S.32 (1).
LOKANATH PUJAPANDA & ANR.-V- STATE OF ORISSA.
CRLA. NO.121 OF 1999 (Dt.09.03.2011).
(L.Mohapatra, J & S.K.Mishra, J.)
Deceased himself lodged F.I.R. vide Ext.6 – In course of treatment, his statement U/s. 161
statement was recorded and such statement has been proved vide Ext.10 – Statements given by the
deceased under Ext.6 & 10 relates to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death.
Held, Exts. 6 & 10 are admissible in evidence as dying declarations of the deceased.
B. PENAL CODE, 1860 – 300, 304-PART-II.
Except inquiry No. (iv) which is not a grievous injury and which has not affected the deceased
totally, all other injuries are either on legs or palm or knee – In view of such fact, it can not be held
that the appellants had the intention to cause death of the deceased – Held, appellants have committed
offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable U/s.304, Part-II I.P.C.
(L.Mohapatra, J & C.R.Dash, J.)