Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)
Prasanna Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others on 12 January, 2024 cites

Mahammed Saud & Anr vs Dr.(Maj) Shaikh Mahafooz & Ors on 22 May, 2010

4. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the writ appeals are maintainable as because the same are arising out of a common judgment passed in two FAOs and one writ petition. Since the judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ appeals are maintainable. It is further contended that against the order passed in FAO No.203 of 2019, Writ Appeal No.666 of 2023 has been filed, whereas W.A. No.650 of 2023 has been filed against the order passed in FAO No. 202 of 2019 and W.A. No. 667 of 2023 has been filed against the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 31932 of 2022. To substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on the order of this Court in the case of Arabinda Panda v. The Director, Higher Education Odisha and others (W.A. No. 143 of 2016 disposed of on 29.09.2021, wherein relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz, 2008 (II) OLR (FB) 725, this Court held that the writ appeal is maintainable.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 26 February, 2015

5. Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 contended that the writ appeals are not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shradhakar Mohanty v. Management of Cuttack Municipal Corporation (W.A. No. 122 of 2013 disposed of on 01.11.2023), where reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rabindranath @ Rabindranath Jena v. Bijay Kumar Bhuyan, 2016 (II) ILR CUT 28; and judgments of the apex Court in the cases of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat, (2015) 9 SCC 1; Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 616 - A K Goel - Full Document

Jyotshna Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha on 9 May, 2018

It is contended that similar view has also been taken by this Court in Smt. Swarnaprava pattnaik @ Das v. Dibakara Satapathy (Dead) through L.Rs Lilly Satapathy @ Page 2 of 3 Panda and others (Writ Appeal No. 346 of 2012 dismissed on 08.12.2016) and in Jyotshna Mohapatra v. State of Odisha, 2018 (I) ILR CUT 869. It is contended that since the cause of action arises from the selfsame issue with regard to approval of the post and the appellant approached the tribunal under Section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act and thereafter respondent no.4 preferred appeal under Section 24-C of the Act before this Court in the FAOs and writ petition, which was examined by the learned Single Judge and consequentially the judgment and order was passed, the writ appeals are not maintainable.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - V Saran - Full Document

Rabindranath Nayak vs Bijay Kumar Patnaik on 4 October, 2021

5. Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 contended that the writ appeals are not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shradhakar Mohanty v. Management of Cuttack Municipal Corporation (W.A. No. 122 of 2013 disposed of on 01.11.2023), where reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rabindranath @ Rabindranath Jena v. Bijay Kumar Bhuyan, 2016 (II) ILR CUT 28; and judgments of the apex Court in the cases of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat, (2015) 9 SCC 1; Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B Rath - Full Document

Swarnaprava Pattnaik @ Das vs Dibakar Satapathy And Ors. on 12 April, 2007

It is contended that similar view has also been taken by this Court in Smt. Swarnaprava pattnaik @ Das v. Dibakara Satapathy (Dead) through L.Rs Lilly Satapathy @ Page 2 of 3 Panda and others (Writ Appeal No. 346 of 2012 dismissed on 08.12.2016) and in Jyotshna Mohapatra v. State of Odisha, 2018 (I) ILR CUT 869. It is contended that since the cause of action arises from the selfsame issue with regard to approval of the post and the appellant approached the tribunal under Section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act and thereafter respondent no.4 preferred appeal under Section 24-C of the Act before this Court in the FAOs and writ petition, which was examined by the learned Single Judge and consequentially the judgment and order was passed, the writ appeals are not maintainable.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A S Naidu - Full Document

Shradhakar Mohanty vs Management Of Cuttack Municipal on 11 May, 2023

5. Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 contended that the writ appeals are not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shradhakar Mohanty v. Management of Cuttack Municipal Corporation (W.A. No. 122 of 2013 disposed of on 01.11.2023), where reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rabindranath @ Rabindranath Jena v. Bijay Kumar Bhuyan, 2016 (II) ILR CUT 28; and judgments of the apex Court in the cases of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat, (2015) 9 SCC 1; Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423.
Orissa High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - G Satapathy - Full Document
1