Orissa High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 3 To April 9, 2023

Nominal Index1. Litumanjari Pradhan v. Chairman, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 42 2. Jayanti Naik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 43 3. Hemalata Mohapatra v. Bijay Kumar Pradhani, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 44 4. Khudia @ Khudiram Tudu v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 45 5. Midiyan Pani & Ors. v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 46 6. M/s. Jena Trading and Co. v. CT and GST Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 47 7. Ananda Ch. Sahu v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 48 8. Rabindra Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 49 9. Prafulla Chandra Mohapatra @ Prusty v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 50 Judgments/Orders ReportedPromissory Estoppel Not To Apply In Favour Of Student Who Despite Knowledge Of Failure In Intermediate Exam Acquired Higher Qualification: Orissa HC Full BenchCase Title: Litumanjari Pradhan v. Chairman, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 42A Full Bench of Orissa High Court answered a reference deciding the correctness of a decision rendered by a Division Bench wherein it was held that the rule of estoppel will apply in favour of a student, who without knowing that he has failed in matriculation/intermediate examination, gets higher education and joins service. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman said the decision of the Division Bench is no longer good law.“It is no doubt true that the Courts have, more often than not, leaned in favour of the students, but as the things stand, a line must be drawn between cases where there have been a bona fide error and cases where the circumstances are dubious,” said the court.Orissa High Court Asks Collector To Reconsider Appeal For Issuance Of ST Certificate On Basis Of Mother’s TribeCase Title: Jayanti Naik v. State of Odisha & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 43The Orissa High Court ordered an appellate authority (collector) to reconsider an appeal against denial of tribe certificate to a boy who was brought up by his tribal mother. The woman had been deserted by her non-tribal husband. While giving relief to the petitioner, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha observed,“The appellate authority thereafter went on to take view that the Tahsildar had properly followed the procedures as per rules and regulations, while rejecting the application of appellant. Assertion of petitioner on facts regarding bringing up of her son in the tribal community was not even looked at.”Section 138, NI Act | Proceedings Can’t Be Invalidated Merely Because Costs For Miscellaneous Expenses Claimed Alongwith Cheque Amount: Orissa High CourtCase Title: Hemalata Mohapatra v. Bijay Kumar PradhaniCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 44The Orissa High Court held that a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be invalidated only because the notice claims costs for some miscellaneous expenses alongside demanding the cheque amount. While relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed,“…in view of the settled legal position in K.R. Indira (supra), the irresistible conclusion is that the defect in notice cannot invalidate the proceeding when the demand is only for the cheque amount with additional claim towards the miscellaneous expenses…”“Criminal Trial Is Not IPL T20 Match”: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction As Defence Counsel Not Granted Reasonable Time For PreparationCase Title: Khudia @ Khudiram Tudu v. State of OdishaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 45The Orissa High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on a rape accused on the ground that the State Defence Counsel, who represented him in the Trial Court, was neither supplied with police papers nor given a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the cross-examination of the victim. Expressing dissatisfaction over the hurried-up manner in which the cross-examination was completed, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,“Engaging a new State Defence Counsel without providing him police papers and just asking him to inspect the case record and to cross-examine the victim and also taking consent from him to conclude the cross-examination on that day itself, in my humble view, is a gross illegality and the accused has been seriously prejudiced by such action of the trial Court. A criminal trial is not an IPL T20 match where every ‘substitute player’ can be an ‘impact player’.”Orissa High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against 146 Villagers Who Gathered In Church Amid COVID Restrictions To Offer Prayers For Departed SoulCase Title: Midiyan Pani & Ors. v. State of OrissaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 46The Court quashed a criminal case pending against 146 villagers of a village in Rayagada district for allegedly congregating in a Church to offer prayers for a departed ...

Orissa High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 3 To April 9, 2023

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags