Orissa Court December 1994 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.
Sano Cadu Alias Pratap Ku. Rout Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Orissa a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1994
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR235
V.A. Mohta, C.J. 1. This is a habeas corpus petition filed by a detenu under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The Impugned order of detention and the grounds of detection were served on the detenu when he was in jail custody in connection with an offence under Section 395, IPC, which is one of the grounds of detention.2. The petitioner had contended that he continues to be In jail custody and no application for release on bail has been filed by him To ascertain this fact, the opposite parties had taken time. The factual aspect is not disputed.3. It is a common ground that the sponsoring authority has not brought to the notice of the detaining authority the above feature of the detenu being in Jail custody. The detaining authority was also not aware of this position.4. Law is well settled that the absence of awareness to the fact of the detenu being in custody vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 5. Leading case on the point is the decision of...
S.K. Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1994
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR67
V.A. Mohta, C.J.1. The petitioner imported into the State of Orissa India-Made Foreign Liquor and stored it in the licensed bonded warehouse from where liquor is released for sale. While liquor was stored in the warehouse, a portion of the imported stock became sediment and therefore, unfit for human consumption. The said stock was destroyed. A notice was issued to him for payment of countervailing duty on the said stock to the tune of Rs. 10,02,182.00. Validity of the said demand is questioned in this petition. According to the petitioner, the quantity of liquor lost in the bonded warehouse and which cannot be issued for sale therefrom cannot be subjected to countervailing duty under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (the Act) in view of Section 28 thereof.2. In support of the contention, the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of P.D. Jain v. State of Orissa (OJC No. 2241 of 1988,disposed of on 11-5-1992), which was followed in the case of M...
Krishna Chandra Karna Vs. State of Orissa Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1994
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR127
R.K. Patra, J.1. What is the true meaning of the word 'employee' occurring in Rule 8 (2)(b) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1974 Rules')?-this is the short question presented before us for determination. A Bench of this Court in Akshaya Kumar Das v. State of Orissa (OJC No. 3700 of 1987 disposed of on 12.11.1990) has taken the view that the word 'employee' in the aforesaid rules may out be confined to the teachers in case the promotion is contemplated to a post of teacher carrying higher scale of pay'. The ratio of Akshaya Kumar (supra) was followed in OJC No. 6717 of 1991 disposed of on 27-3-1992.Both the aforesaid two cases come to be cited when the present case came up for hearing before a Bench. As the literal interpretation given to the word 'employee' in Akshaya Kumar (supra) was questioned, the Bench referred the matter to a larger B...
ion Exchange India Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1994
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR20
V.A. Mohta, C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench in this batch of cases is whether any authority constituted under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (the Act) has in view of Section 24(7), power to grant stay of payment of the amount of tax due in accordance with the order of the Tribunal, in respect of which an application made under Section 24(1) or a reference: made inconsequence there of is pending disposal.2. Having herd parties at length, we see a neat and clear answer to the question and that is in the negative. Section 24 reads thus: '24. Statement of case to High Court. (1) Within sixty days from the date of receipt of the copy of an order of the Tribunal under Sub-section (3) of Section 23 affecting any liability of any dealer to pay tax under this Act, such deafer or, as the case may be, the State Government, may by application in writing accompanied, when the application is made by any person other than the State Government, with a fee of one hundred rupees require ...
Pitabash Sahoo Vs. Sri G.R. Mohanty and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2578
R.K. Patra, J.1. We have heard Shri G. S. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri B. K. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate.2. Shri Rath submitted that the present being a civil contempt, as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is to be heard and determined by a single Judge and if it would be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench, the aggrieved party would be deprived of the right of appeal to a Division Bench as provided in Section 19(1)(a) of the Act. We find sufficient force in this submission. Section 18 of the Act provides that a case of criminal contempt (criminal contempt is defined in Section 2(c) shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges. Section 19(1) provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from the order or decision of a single Judge to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court and where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›