Orissa Court January 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P.J. Appalanarasayya and Sons Vs. General Manager, S.E. Railway and or ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori40
G. B. Patnaik, J. 1. These two writ applications are directed against a common order of the District Judge, who, as the appellate authority under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dismissed the two appeals, Misc. Appeal No. 90 of 1984 and Misc. Appeal No. 91 of 1984. Misc. Appeal No. 90 of 1984 had been directed against an order of eviction passed under Section 5(1) of the Act and Misc. Appeal No. 91 of 1984 had been directed against an order for damages under Section 7 of the Act for the unauthorised occupation.2. Plot No. 87 of Cuttack Dock Yard belongs to the South Eastern Railway. Originally the land in question was the land of Bengal Nagpur Railway, a private company. The said company had given the land to the Divisional Forest Office, Angul under an agreement in the year 1943. On 15-8-1943 the company allowed one Bengal Timber Trading Company, the disputed land, for erection of a Saw Mill an...
Gouri Shankar Traders, Rayagada Represented by Shri Ippili Lakshmana R ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR66
L. Rath, J.1. The relief sought for in this case is quashing of the cognizance taken against the petitioner Under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the allegation of having violated the provisions of the Orissa Pulses.Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers'(Licensing) Order, 1977 read with Clause 12(1)(b) of the said Order and Clause 3 of the Order. The allegation against the petitioner is that even though his licence under the control order had expired yet he was carrying on business as a licences under the control order. It is the submission of Mr. Naik. learned counsel for the petitioner, that on the self-same facts a confiscation proceeding had been started against the petitioner in respect of the goods seized from it, but that though the goods were directed to be confiscated by the competent authority, yet in appeal the order of confiscation was set aside. The facts leading to the confiscation were that admittedly the petitioner was a licencee under the control order ...
Mahim Midday Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT649; 1992(II)OLR154
A. Pasayat, J.1. On the allegation that he had exposed for sale bread, which was adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act') for human consumption, thereby attracting imposition of penalty in terms of Section 16(1) thereof, petitioner faced trial2. Sans phrase, background facts as presented by the prosecution are as follows :The Food Inspector (PW 1) attached to the Chief District Medical Officer, Keonjhar went to the business premises of one Nazrul Midday on 10-4-1982. In the absence of the said Nazrul Midday who was the owner of the bakery, the petitioner was conducting business transactions. Bread weighing 1500 grams was purchased by the Food Inspector on the suspicion that the said food article exposed for sale was adulterated, and unfit for human consumption. The sample collected was sent to the Public Analyst, who opined that the sample of food article collected indicated adulteration. The petitioner dispute...
Prasanna Kumar Nayak and ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT791; (1993)ILLJ611Ori; 1992(I)OLR466
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1.The petitioners, four in number, are before this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction which, being couched in comprehensive phraseology, confers wide powers on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found, as stated in Dwarkanath v. I.T.O., A.I.R. 1966 S.C 81. The language of this Article permits every High Court not only to issue writs of habeas-corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, which were being issued in England, but also to issue such directions or orders which the situation demands to meet the requirements of a case. In Basappa v. Nagappa, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 440, it was stated that the language used in Article 226 was very wide and the powers of the High Court extended to issuing orders, writs or directions as may be considered necessary for enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes as well. 2. We have prefaced the judgment with these observations because Shri Nanda appearing for the opposite parties submitted, o...
Ganesh Traders Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT330; 1992(I)OLR557
L. Rath, J. 1. An order of confiscation of 120 bags of milled boiled rice Is in challenge in this case raising the question that no order of confiscation could be passed without a report as to seizure being made to the Collector of the district and that no order of confiscation could be passed by any officer excepting the Collector of the district. In the instant case the order of confiscation has been passed by the S. D. O. The petitioner who claims to hold a licence under the Orissa Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1954 states to have loaded the articles seized in a truck bearing registration number OAS 2827 at his godown located near opp. party No. 3 and despatched the same to the destination at Rourkela to opp. party. No. 4. The truck was inspected at Beheramal Crossing at Jharsuguda by Inspector of Supplies who recorded the statement of the driver of the truck and seized the article. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 30-3-1987 under Section 6-A of the Essential Commoditie...
Kishore Chandra Samal and 39 ors. and Sarat @ Sharat Chandra Padhi Vs. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT649; 1992(I)OLR544
G.B. Pattnaik, J. 1. A common question of law is involved in both these writ applications and, therefore, these cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. The order of transfer of the petitioners under Annexure-1 is the subject matter of challenge. The question ' of law raised in these two applications is whether the personnel belonging to the Octroi Section of a Municipality from a cadre by themselves and are, therefore, not to be transferred to any other posts, notwithstanding the provisions of the Orissa Local Fund Service Rules, 1975 2. The Government of Orissa had issued a Notification on 31-8-1976 grouping different posts in the Municipalities within a cadre and it is because of the said notification, the petitioners have been transferred from one post to the other within the cadre so formed by the Government in the notification referred to earlier. The aforesaid Notification had been challenged by an employee of the Berhampur Municipality a...
Mamta Drinks and Industries Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 2003(153)ELT518(Ori)
L. Rath, J.1. The sole relief claimed by the petitioner is the grant of credit in respect of the duty paid on glass bottles lying in stock on 1-3-1987 or brought in thereafter and used in the manufacture of aerated water and for utilizing the credit granted to pay the duty payable on the final product of aerated water. The alternate relief originally claimed in the writ petition for getting refund of the credit has not been pressed by Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner's case is based upon Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules read with Chapter 22 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the notifications of the Central Government of 1-3-1987 (Annexure-2), 1-10-1987 (Annexure-12) and 25-7-1991 (filed in Court on 22-1-1992). Rule 57A introduced a scheme popularly known as Modvat, which broadly speaking, contemplates that where some goods are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products and excise duty or additional duty ...
Maguni Pradhan Vs. Commissioner of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR246
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Does power of Commissioner of Consolidation to act in terms of Section 37 become inoperative after a notification under Section 41 is issued under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') is the core question that falls for determination in this writ application. 2. Since the dispute revolves round a conjoint reading of two provisions of the Act, detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary. Stated in short, the factual position is as follows :On 14-10-1985, a notification in terms of Section 41 of the Act was issued signifying closure of consolidation operations in the consolidation unit relating to village Banakhandi in Puri district. Petitioner filed an application styled as one under Section 37 of the Act, before the Commissioner praying for correction of the record-of-rights and the map. The said application was numbered as Consolidation Revision No. 1208 of 1986. On 6-10-1986, the rev...
H.S.K. Rawlley Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-22-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR270(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act' ) has been made on a motion by Messrs. H. S. K. Rawlley (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, 'the Tribunal').2. The background facts as appear from the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal are as follows :For the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income from contract works. It had entered into a contract for loading, transport and reloading of limestones in railway wagons with the Rourkela Steel Plant. It issued notices on August 5, 1976, intimating its desire to retrench the noticee workers with effect from November 15, 1976,. This arrangement was accepted by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by letter of the Under Secretary, dated November 10, 1976. The background for such notices appears to be the apprehended liability to pay gra...
Sri Sidheswar Sahoo Vs. Special Officer and Competent Authority and an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-22-1992
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT409; 1992(I)OLR462
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), annexed as Annexure-2 and the order of the appellate authority, annexed as Annexure-3, are being challenged in this writ application by the petitioner who happens to be the legal representative of the surplus holder late Moti Dei.Their Lordships, after rejecting other contentions of petitioner as question of facts concluded by competent authority, found as follows : 5. So far as the lands alleged to have been covered by the agricultural lands, the competent authority has held that the lands are covered in the residential zone of the Master Plan for the Cutback City. While defining 'urban land' in Section 2(O) of the Act. it is no doubt indicated that it does not include any land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. Explanation (3) to the said sub-section clearly states that the land shall not be d...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »