Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1975)ILLJ116Ori
B.K. Ray, J.1. The petitioner is a Trade Union of Sub-Assistant Engineers employed in the Orissa State Electricity Board and is known as ' Sub-Assistant Engineers' Association, Orissa State Electricity Board' (hereinafter called the union). The Central Wage Board award for electricity undertaking was accepted by the Government of India on 30-7-70. The union thereafter served a charier of demands on the Board on 18-6-71 accompanied by a strike notice. The charter of demands with strike notice is Annexurel. The Board being a public utility service, the Conciliation Officer gave notice of conciliation to the Board and the union on 2-7-71.2. During the conciliation proceeding the union did not press its demand Nos. (a), (c), (d), and (e) but only pressed demand No. (b) as per Annexure 1. Demand No, (b) is as follows-(b)(i) Full and faithful implementation of the Central Wage Board recommendations as per the memorandum submitted in this Association letter No. 109 (5), dated 30-5-71.(ii) Imm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1976]38STC69(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. These are seven applications for writs of certiorari directed against the rejection of applications for refund of sales tax passed by the Sales Tax Officer and upheld in revision by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. For the construction of the Hydro Electric Project at Machkund in the district of Koraput within the State of Orissa, a joint venture between the State of Madras and the State of Orissa was undertaken. With the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the said State replaced the State of Madras in the joint venture. M/s. John Mowlem and Co., originally im-pleaded as opposite party No. 5 and transposed as petitioner No. 2, undertook certain contracts under this project. The said contract came to be assessed under Section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the quarters ending 30th June, 1950, to 31st December, 1951, and a total liability of Rs. 1,06,419 was created by way of tax and penalty. The contractor challenged its ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1393
S. Acharya, J.1. The three appellants were committed to sessions in one commitment proceeding and one set of charge under Section 436 read with Section 34, I.P.C. was framed against all the three appellants in S. T. No. 16/27 of 1972 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Balasore, and he in one trial found all the three appellants guilty of the aforesaid charge framed against them and sentenced each of them thereunder to undergo R. I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo R. I. for a further period of six months. After conviction, each of the appellants separately preferred the three jail appeals as shown above against the judgment of conviction passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge in S. T. No. 16/27 of 1972. Mr. S. C. Lal, Advocate of the local bar, who was engaged amicus curiae to appear for all the three appellants in the abovementioned three criminal appeals, addressed one set of argument on behalf of all the three appellants. So all the three criminal app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1684
ORDERPatra, Ag. C.J.1. This case raises a question regarding the interpretation of Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In G. R. Case No. 90 of 1971 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Narsinghpur, Mahadeb Behera was one of the accused, While being released on bail, he had executed a bond for his appearance in Court on all subsequent dates of hearing. The petitioner Jagannath Raut was one of his sureties who had executed a like bond in favour of the Court undertaking to produce the accused in Court and in default to forfeit a sum of Rs. 200/- to Government. On 22-3-1973, which was one of the dates fixed for trial of the case, the accused Mahadeb Behera absented himself from Court. The Court thereupon directed notice to be issued to the bailor to show cause why the bond amount shall not be realised from him. On 24-3-1973, the petitioner Jagannath Raut appeared in Court in response to the notice issued to him and stated that his village is at some distance from the village of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1396
ORDERB.K. Patra, Ag. C.J.1. This application in revision raises an interesting question regarding the correct interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 346 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. On 24-5-1971, the petitioner filed a complaint petition against the opposite parties and one Sudhakar Misra alleging that they had committed offences under Sections 346, 427, 147 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The Subdivisional Magistrate directed an inquiry under Section 302, Cr. P. C. by a Magistrate, who after such inquiry submitted a report that a prima facie case under Section 352, I.P.C. had been made out against the three accused persons. On a perusal of the report, the S. D. M. took cognizance under Section 352, I.P.C. and transferred the case for disposal to Shri S. C. Satpathy. Magistrate, 3rd Class for trial according to law. After examining two witnesses for the prosecution, the Magistrate Shri Satpathy thought that an offence under Section 427, I.P.C. had been made out against the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori12
B.K. Patra, Ag. C.J. 1. The short and important point that arises for determination in this second appeal is whether Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to the facts of this case, which may be shortly stated. 2. One Hemachandra Behra who died in the year 1948 had a son named Suryananda and a daughter named Taramani defendant No. 6. During Hemachandra's life time, he had given his daughter Taramani in marriage to Banamali (defendant No. 7). Suryananda died some time after the death of Hemachandra. Suryananda's widow is Malati (defendant No. 1). On 10-4-1947 one Jagannath Jena sold 0.52 acre of land to defendant No. 6 who being then a minor was represented in the transaction by her father guardian Hemachandra. Ext. B is the sale deed. On 12-4-1947, one Gada Bewa sold 0,76 acre of land to defendant No. 6 who being minor was represented by her husband defendant No. 7, Ext. C is the sale deed. On 17-11-1947, Hemachandra executed a registered Patta in respect of 2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1975)ILLJ100Ori
B.K. Patra, Acting C.J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order Annexure 1 dismissing the petitioner, an employee of the Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela from service and Annexure 2, the order passed by the presiding officer of the Industrial' Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act) approving such dismissal. The petitioner was a charge-man grade I under the Hindustan Steel. Limited, Rourkela and was workingin the Pipe Plant. On 19-11-1968, the order Annexure 1 was passed by the General Manager. Annexure 1 so far as material is quoted below.Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela, (Orissa) * * *Dismissal Order * * *Whereas the General Manager is personally satisfied that the continuance in employment of Mohammad Yasin, token No. 1007 charge-man, Pipe Plant is not expedient as it is against the interest of secu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 40(1974)CLT859; (1975)ILLJ92Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. On 22-3-1971, the State Public Service Commission invited applications from qualified Engineers for recruitment as Assistant Engineers in the Orissa Service of Engineers. The petitioner along with many others applied. It is alleged that the Commission recommended 44 names for appointment and the petitioner claims that he was placed as 38 in the list in order of merit. On 3-1-1972, 15 persons out of the list were appointed by the State Government as Assistant Engineers while by another notification of the same day 9 out of the said list were appointed and ten days thereafter 5 others were also appointed-thus in all 29 out of the list of 44 were recruited. Government wanted the Commission to recommend some more names, but the Commission wrote back saying that until the list already recommended was exhausted there would be no occasion for a fresh list to be prepared. Notwithstanding the fact that in the list there were 15 more yet to be appointed, the State Government on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori38
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. The averments in the writ application may be stated in short. The petitioner is a forest contractor in respect of lot No. 291 of the Bari-pada Forest Division. There was a public auction on 28-8-73. The upset price was fixed at Rs. 73,000. The petitioner with five others participated in the public auction. The petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 80,500. The sale was finally knocked at that amount. After the acceptance of the highest bid of the petitioner he was directed by the Divisional Forest Officer fopposite party No. 3) to sign the bid-sheet. The D.F.O. also signed the bid-sheet in token of his acceptance of the bid. Immediately after the bid-sheet was signed the petitioner deposited Rs. 3,050 which was 10 per cent of the bid amount. The security deposit was in the form of Government Promissory Notes and National Defence Certificates. The agreement was signed by thepetitioner and the D.F.O. The period of lease was nine working months starting...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori36
Patra, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing Annexure 1 which is an order issued under Section 12 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (Act VI of 1898) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Post Master General, Orissa empowering the Superintendent of Post Office, Balasore to realise the sum of Rs. 509.98 P. from the petitioner and the subsequent proceedings with effect from 2-7-1969 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1969 on the file of opposite party No. 1.2. The petitioner was the addressee in respect of a value payable letter (hereinafter referred to as V.P.L.) for an amount of Rs. 509.98 P. It is his case that the said V.P.L. was delivered to him on 13-6-1966 at Goradpur Post Office on payment by him of the .amount of Rupees 509.98 P. On 4-9-1969 he was informed by a Police Constable of Bhadrak Police Station that a Distress Warrant was received from the postal authorities by the officer-in-charge,...
Tag this Judgment!