High Court of Orissa
29 judgments
873013b843eea2ae22023f2d7e521644c234dc40dc88f90d2616d31fdbbdcfce
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of accused for voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons under Sections 324 and 34 IPC, affirming the importance of medical and eyewitness evidence and awarding compensation to the victim.
2f875ab18da5c0e50a804a4f5b4808e611df1775cdea6b5b177b034c0865b045
The Supreme Court upheld bail granted on medical grounds, emphasizing the necessity of credible medical evidence and full disclosure by the accused.
3e2f2e2f371e69018890af39f0f285e66f53b32c9a056714772e59aa0fe7ff8c
The court upheld the petitioner’s bail, emphasizing full disclosure and reliable scientific evidence as essential for bail decisions, dismissing prosecution’s objections of concealment.
76dec61afabd10845de7a09c3c9c2106216ded9e413be419ff38bd5c68d3d44f
The court held that only the court having jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration can entertain petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
ad1754e171041c8b51737dc4fe7b1321cbe824e6fb284ff7783572abeed920ff
The Orissa High Court held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, only the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant bail and conduct arbitration-related proceedings, excluding subordinate courts from such jurisdiction.
a6a23452aabaa05ab8ea0892e74f4f3c85c5ceecc86ff6f9877e72ef9131ec32
The Supreme Court held that 'Kuris' are not a distinct Scheduled Tribe separate from 'Kuri' and affirmed that only the President and Parliament can amend Scheduled Tribe lists under Articles 341 and 342.
3ccad0f238c433b58fbc3c4714a4c9979e343daa7eccb244d79f6ee6c2ed877e
The court held that mandatory conditions under the Odisha Animal Husbandry Veterinary Services Rules for release and posting of veterinary officers must be strictly followed, setting aside releases made without compliance.
2669d8fdcc85ec026f7866fa00ea59a21e321daabfb19c513f497d7c92786772
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reduction of compensation in a motor accident claim and confirmed the petitioner's liability to pay Rs. 20,00,000 to the respondents.
ee23807da8a140ebeb820e8c5b534fb4e97502ed8af1c8c9b5521d1a0c43c9bf
The court upheld the High Court's reduction of compensation from Rs. 24,62,065 to Rs. 20,00,000, emphasizing judicial restraint and evidentiary support in appellate review of compensation claims.