January to March 2013 for PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

16CourtNewsMANORAMA MOHANTY & ORS.-V- AUTHORIZED OFFICER & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.6913 OF 2008 (With Batch) (Dt.21.12.2012)SECRUITSATION & RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS & ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITYINTEREST ACT, 2002 ( in short SARFAESI ACT,2002) – S.13.Whether the Co-operative Banks are entitled to take action under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, againstthe petitioners to enforce the security interest as created by the petitioners while taking loan when disputecase U/ss. 68 & 70 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 is pending – Held, pendency of DisputeCase U/ss. 68 & 70 of the OCS Act does not debar the Co-operative Banks from invoking the provisionsof the SARFAESI Act to enforce security interest for liquidation of loan not repaid.( M. M. Das, J & C.R. Dash, J.)SUKANTI JENA-V- STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.11212 OF 2012 (Dt.21.12.2012)ANGANWADI WORKER – Appointment – Advertisement made for one post – Five candidatesapplied – One Sasmita Behera was selected/appointed having secured highest marks – Petitioner wassecond in the merit list – As Sasmita was regularly attending C.T. training petitioner filed appeal challengingher appointment before the A.D.M. – Sasmita was disengaged – Since petitioner was not given appointmentin that vacancy she filed the writ petition.As per guide lines of the Government Dt.2.5.2007 vacancy need be filled up immediately – SinceSasmita has not challenged her disengagement order nor the rest three candidates challenged the selectlist prepared by the Selection Committee, right accrues in favour of the petitioner for appointment in thatvacancy – Held, direction issued to the CDPO (O.P.4) to issue order of engagement to the petitioner asAnganwadi worker.( B. N. Mahapatra, J. )HAWKINS COOKERS LTD. & ORS.-V- SRI JAGANNATH TRADERSCRP. NO.49 OF 2010 (Dt.14.12.2012)A. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 – O-.14, R-2.Issue relating to lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court ought to be decided before the partieswent into trial of the suit.In this case admittedly on 6.7.2010 the Plaintiff-O.P. filed evidence on affidavit Under Order 18, Rule4 C.P.C. and the defendant-Petitioners cross-examined P.W.1 – Held, the Defendants-petitioners havewaived their right of raising objection as to territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court and to make a prayerto try that issue as preliminary issue.B. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 – O-14, R-2(2).Where two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try a suit, whether the parties can agree to submitthemselves to the jurisdiction of one of these Courts and oust the jurisdiction of other Courts and if theanswer is in affirmative, whether such an agreement is against the public policy – Held, where two or moreCourts have jurisdiction to try a suit, the parties can agree to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of oneof those Courts and oust the jurisdiction of other Courts and such an agreement is not against the publicpolicy.