Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 2005 Page 100 of about 1,498 results (0.060 seconds)

Aug 08 2005 (HC)

Swastik Filaments Corporation Vs. Swami Marine Products Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-08-2005

Reported in : 101(2006)CLT61; [2006]132CompCas840(Orissa)

orderm.m. das, j.1. all the above four cases have been filed by the respective petitioners praying for winding up of the opp. party company, namely, swami marine products private limited. by orders passed previously in each of the cases, except copet no. 10 of 2003, notices were published in the daily newspapers as per the direction of this court.2. mr. milan kanungo has entered appearance on behalf of the opp. party-company in all the above cases. he has filed a memo along with documents showing that the opp. party-company has been seized by the orissa state financial corporation under section 29 of the state financial corporation act, 1951 on 4.11.2004 and proposals for settlement have been filed by the opp. party-company before the orissa state financial corporation, mr. kanungo submitted that though the assets of the opp. party-company have been seized by the orissa state financial corporation under section 29 of the s.f.c. act, 1951 but the same has not been put to sale as yet. he, therefore, submitted that since the unit of the opp. party-company is already under seizure by the o.s.f.c., it would not be practicable for this court under the companies act, 1956 to pass orders for winding up of the opp. party-company.3. mr. rajen mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above four cases submitted that in the facts of the case, it would be open for the company court to pass an order of winding up even if the property has been seized under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 2005 (HC)

Ch. Laxmikantham Vs. the Chairman, State Bank of India and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Dec-20-2005

Reported in : 101(2006)CLT65; [2006(108)FLR1144]; 2006(I)OLR275

a.k. samantaray, j.1. in this writ petition under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india the petitioner has challenged the order of discharge from service passed by the disciplinary authority (o. p. no. 1) and confirmation of the same by the appellate authority (o. p. no. 3) and has prayed for quashment of the said orders under annexures 25 & 28. she has also prayed for her reinstatement in service with all service benefits right from the date of her suspension on 1.2.1997.2. the background facts leading to the discharge of the petitioner from service and filing of this writ petition is narrated below.the petitioner was appointed as junior assistant in the state bank of india and her appointment was made on compassionate ground on 9.2.1985. in the first instance she was posted as a clerk in the idco tower branch of the state bank of india at bhubaneswar and in may, 1992 she was transferred to balasore. while holding office in the sbi, main branch, balasore, she committed serious irregularities and gross misconduct in the month of january, 1997. the petitioner belongs to award staff and is governed by all india industrial tribunal (bank disputes) which is popularly known as shastry award and paragraph 512 of the shastry award prescribes the procedure relating to the disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalty and the said shastry award is binding on the parties in accordance with section 18 of the industrial dispute act. the serious irregularities and gross .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 2005 (HC)

Sahoo Chemicals, Represented by Sandip Sahu Vs. Orissa State Financial ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Nov-16-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Ori57; 101(2006)CLT83

p. k. mohanty, j.1. the petitioner has filed this writ application to quash annexure-10, the sale order dated 23.2.1994 and annexure-7, seizure of the petitioner's unit under section 29 of the state financial corporation act.2. the factual aspects of the case are almost admitted so far as the petitioner's loan and non-payment thereof is concerned. it appears from annexure-6 dated 7.11.1992, the letter of the petitioner addressed to the branch manager, orissa state financial corporation, rourkela branch, that possession of the unit 'sahoo chemicals', manufacturing sodium silicate, b-2, industrial estate, rourkela-4 along with land, building, shed and other constructions along with a list of equipments and current assets was handed over to the state financial corporation with a request to sell the unit along with the equipments etc. at a competitive and reasonable price acceptable to it. the advertisement for sale of the unit was published in newspaper 'the prajatantra' dated 27.10.1992. the advertisement reads as follows :sahoo chemicals, rourkela, manufacturer of sodium silicate located in udit nagar industrial estate area on approximately half acre of land with fully equipped plant and machinery in running condition houses in factory shed and two stories pucca building for office and guest house is for immediate sale. contactshri s. n. sahoo,shop no. 6, sector-5 market, rourkela-2phone-0661-5206 (9 a.m. to 9 p.m.)the petitioner in its letter dated 9.3.1994 (annexure-11) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 2005 (HC)

Smt. Sudhamayee Acharjya and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Nov-08-2005

Reported in : 101(2006)CLT110

m.m. das, j.1. the petitioners in this writ petition who are residents of nayapalli area in bhubaneswar town, have filed the present writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation for quashing the lease and subsequent approval of the building plan and grant of permission made in favour of opp. party no. 6 for construction of a hotel over plot no. b/6 corresponding to revenue plot nos. 1578 (part), 1603 and 1602 (part) in khata no. 1427 in unit xvi, mouza jayadev bihar, bhubaneswar. the petitioners have further sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the opp. parties 1 to 5 to strictly follow the master plan prepared under the orissa development authorities act, 1982 (for short 'o.d.a. act').2. it is the case of the petitioners that the above mentioned land was earmarked for construction of a bus stop in 1974 master plan and the concerned authorities without adhering to the provisions of the statute governing the field and in violation thereof have permitted the opp. party no. 6 to construct a hotel over the said land. the petitioners have further alleged that if such a hotel is allowed to be constructed over the plot in question, the same would be facing the residential houses of the inhabitants of the locality and would not only disturb the peace of the locality but also will affect their right of privacy. according to the petitioners, if the hotel is permitted to function in the said site, it would also cause parking problems and will endanger the lives .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2005 (HC)

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Serv ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Oct-07-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Ori42; 101(2006)CLT117; 2006FAJ124

m.m. das, j.1. the petitioner in this writ application prays for quashing the order dated 9.12.2004 under annexure-6 to the writ application by which the director, animal husbandry & veterinary services, orissa, cuttack, black-listed the petitioner's firm namely, m/s. brite traders and debarred it from participating in future tender issued by the said directorate.2. the petitioner claims to be an authorized supplier of drugs for alembic live stock and poultry range of products for the state of orissa. in support of this contention, the petitioner has annexed the letter issued by the general manager, marketing (vet.) of the said company addressed to the opp. party. it is revealed from the facts of the case that a tender notice inviting offer from authorized dealers for supply of veterinary medicine dated 7.11.2001 was issued by the opp. party for supply of veterinary drugs. the petitioner made an offer for supply of such drugs and the said offer was accepted. the petitioner supplied amongst other, the drug called 'cotrimal bolus' of seven different batches including batch no. v-2006, on different dates, for the financial year, 2001-2002. the petitioner claims to have purchased the said drugs from m/s. essar agencies, a consignee agent of m/s. alembic limited, baroada. the petitioner received a show cause notice from opp. party, calling upon him to show cause as to why the total cost of the drug 'cotrimal bolus' of batch no. v-2006 amounting to rs. 52.630/- including taxes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2005 (HC)

Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. Sri Binod Biha ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Oct-04-2005

Reported in : 101(2006)CLT122; [2006(108)FLR1142]

orderp.k. tripathy, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties and this writ petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner for the following reasons.2. petitioner challenges the award of the presiding officer, labour court, sambalpur passed on 25.2.2005 in i.d. case no. 57 of 2003. the reference which was made by him, read as hereunder :whether the termination of services of sri binod bihari nial, nmr peon with effect from 1.5.2001 by the management of m/s. orissa state co-operative marketing federation ltd. markfed, orissa, bhubaneswar is legal and/or justified if not, what relief is sri nial entitled to 3. in the above context, claim of the opp. party-workman was that thought he was engaged as nmr w.e.f. 17.6.1985 and continued as such till 30th april, 2001, he was retrenched under section 25-f of the industrial dispute act, 1947 (in short 'the act') and in lieu thereof wage for a period of one month was paid to him. his grievance is that though similarly situated several persons (named in the impugned order) were junior to him, he was preferred to be retrenched in contravention of section 25-g of the act. he also told that one hrushikesh mohapatra and pitabasa rout were given appointment as peon without considering his case for such appointment. petitioner further stated that his case of retrenchment is covered by chapter v-b of the act, because on an average five hundred workmen were working in the establishment and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2005 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) Represented Through Its Gen. Manager, South Easte ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Oct-04-2005

Reported in : 101(2006)CLT125; [2006(109)FLR131]

order1. heard mr. a.k. mishra, learned counsel for the railways and mr. ashok das, learned counsel for the caveator-opp. party.2. this writ application is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2004 passed by the central administrative tribunal, cuttack bench, cuttack in o.a. no. 107 of 2002, which was filed by the caveator-opp. party. the tribunal allowed the original application holding that the caveator-opp. party is entitled to get the family pension and consequently directed the petitioners to immediately grant family pension to her by computing the entire period of service rendered by her husband in the railways.3. the facts of the case are that the late husband of the caveator-opp. party, namely, brahmananda pati was initially engaged as temporary railway employee under the bridge inspector, south eastern railway, bhadrak on 24.9.1970 on casual basis with authorised scale of pay. his widow, i.e. the caveator-opp. party filed the original application before the central administrative tribunal seeking a direction for payment of family pension and gratuity from the date of death of her husband. the case of the petitioners before the tribunal was that the husband of the opp. party was appointed on casual basis having temporary status till his death i.e. 1.6.1983 and a casual labourer not being entitled to get pension, family pension cannot be granted to the widow of such casual labourer.the tribunal formulated two points for determination which were :(a) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2005 (HC)

G. Srinivas Goud Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Oct-03-2005

Reported in : 101(2006)CLT129

arun kumar, j.1. these two appeals arise from a common judgment of the high court maintaining the conviction of the appellants under section 22 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (for short 'the ndps act') and sentencing both of them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of rupees one lakh each, in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of six months to the defaulter.2. as per the prosecution case, p.w. 1, who happens to be the assistant commissioner, prohibition and excise, received information about illegal possession of diazepam in premises bearing no. 12-13-700/2, nagarjun nagar, tamaka, secunderabad. diazepam is a banned drug under the act. on receipt of this information he prepared a memo of search proceedings and proceeded to the place in question along with two constables. on his way he took two persons along, one of them being a police constable, to act as mediators/independent persons. the memo of search proceeding is exhibit p-1. after reaching the spot, he prepared a panchnama, exhibit p-2 which is signed by the accused persons, two panch witnesses in addition to the three officers of the department. a copy of the panchnama was supplied to both the accused. according to the panchnama, on reaching the premises, the main doors were found open. the raiding party entered the house. they found two persons, the present appellants, sitting in a room. the house was searched and a plastic bag containing some chemical was found .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2005 (HC)

Krushna Ch. Panda and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Nov-07-2005

Reported in : 101(2006)CLT173; 2006(1)OLR1

order1. heard mr. p. k. rath, learned counsel for the petitioners and mr. p. k. mohanty, learned addl. government advocate.2. the petitioners in the present application call in question the order of resumption of lease passed under section 3-b of the orissa government land settlement act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') by the tahasildar, bhubaneswar. the facts of the case reveal that in w.l. case no. 1781 of 1978 initiated by an application filed by one lingaraj rath, after following due, procedure as prescribed under the act and the rules framed thereunder, the land bearing plot no.516/ 1679 under khata no.489/48 measuring ac.1,000 was leased out in favour of the said applicant. the name of the said lessee-lingaraj rath was recorded in the record of right in 'sthitiban' status. while in possession of the said land, the original lessee-lingaraj rath sold a part of the same by a registered sale deed to one subasini barei. he also sold another portion of the said land to one jayabana kumar singh. the said j. k. singh, in turn, sold the said land to one sushama das. petitioner no.1- krushna chandra panda has purchased the land to the extent of ac.0.25 from smt. subasini barei and petitioner no.2- laxmipriya rath has purchased the land to the extent of ac.0.45 from smt. sushama das by registered sale deeds. it also appears that in mutation case no.5519 of 2001, the tahasildar, bhubaneswar mutated the purchased land in favour of petitioner no.1.3. it is the case of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 2005 (HC)

Smt. Sunanda Kar Alias Ratha Vs. Sudip Ratha

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Nov-29-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Ori80; I(2006)DMC695; 2006(1)OLR4

l. mohapatra, j.1. this writ application is directed against the order dated 30th april, 2005 passed by the learned civil judge (senior division), puri in m.a.t. no.227 of 2002 allowing an application for amendment of the plant.2. from the impugned order, it appears that the opposite party had initially filed a suit under section 12 of the hindu marriage act (hereinafter called 'the act') for annulment of the marriage and the said suit was filed as the parties had not completed one year of marriage. during pendency of the said suit, certain developments took place and after three years of marriage, the present application under order 6, rule 17 c.p.c. for amendment of the plaint was filed to bring the suit within the purview of section 13 of the act and in order to bring the suit under section 13 of the said act, certain developments which are said to have taken place after filing of the suit under section 12 were also pleaded.3. the petitioner resisted the petition for amendment on the ground that a suit under section 12 and a suit under section 13 of the act involve completely different questions and, therefore, there is hardly any scope for amendment of the plaint to the above extent. it was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party should withdraw the suit filed under section 12 of the act and file a fresh suit under section 13 of the act.4. the learned civil judge (sr. division) in the impugned order allowed the application by .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //