Orissa Court November 2003 Judgments
All India Federation of Tax Practitioners Vs. Union of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN491(Orissa)
Heard Dr. Pal, leaned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mrs. Agrawal, leaned senior standing counsel (Central) for the Union of India.2. Issue usual notice to the opposite parties on the question of admission. Notice is made returnable within one month. Mrs. Agrawal accepts notice on behalf of all the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to furnish learned senior standing counsel (Central) with three copies of the writ petition by tomorrow.3. Since the vires of the Ordinance is under challenge, a copy of this petition along with interim application and copy of this order will be sent to the learned Attorney General of India by Speed Post with A.D. within 14-11-2003.4. Issue notice of this application as above. Learned senior standing counsel (Central) accepts notice on behalf of all the opposite parties.5. This is an application praying for stay of operation of the impugned National Tax Tribunal Ordinance, 2003.6. Dr. Pal, learned counsel for the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Dinabandhu Mohapatra and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1931
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. The order dated 30-7-1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Purl in Criminal Appeal No. 45/1997 confirming an order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Puri in G.R. Case No. 1235 of 1996 (Trial No. 886, of 1997) is impugned in this case.2. On the basis of an F.I.R. filed by P.W. 1, the criminal action was set to motion. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 15-9-1996 at about 2 p.m., all the three petitioners came to the house of informant on a Rajdoot motorcycle and on the point of a Bhujali, threatened the informant's father, P.W. 2, that if he would not part with a sum of Rs. 5000/-, they would kill his son, P.W. 1. Out of fear, P.W. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 2000/- to the petitioners. It is further alleged in the FIR that P.W. 3, who happens to be the maternal uncle of P.W. 1, was present at the time of occurrence and was an eye-witness of the entire occurrence. On the basis of the said FIR, G.R. Case No. 1235 of 1996 was registered ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chandra Padhee Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ori80; 2004(I)OLR1
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 9-7-2002 (Annexure-11) and the order dated 22-7-2002 (Annexure-12) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar directing the petitioner not to operate the mining lease until receipt of further clarification from the Government.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts necessary for effectual adjudication of the present writ petition are that a Mining Lease was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the Mine situated in Bholabeda under Barbil Tahasil in the district of Keonjhar for a period of 20 years by a lease deed executed on 5-7-1972. After expiry of the term of the said lease on 4-7-1992, the same was again extended for another period of 10 years by a second registered lease dated 7-1-997 with a stipulation that it would come to effect restrospectively from 5-7-1992. One year before expiry of the term of the second lease, an application for renewal of the lease accompanying necessary docum...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Babulal Motali Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(II)OLR671
ORDERB.P. Das, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.2. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the action of the opposite parties in cancelling the licence of the petitioner for Sub-wholesalership in Kerosene oil on the ground that before cancelling the licence, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was a licence holder to deal in Kerosene oil as Sub-wholesaler at Ghantapada under Kantamal Block of Boudh district since 15.7.2000 and the said licence was valid till 31.3.2003. On 20.2.2003 O.P. No. 2, i.e., the Collector, Boudh, by his order dated 20.2.2003 (Annexure-2) cancelled the licence for Sub- wholesaler in Kerosene on the ground that he was appointed after 15.2.1999 without the approval of the State Govt.3. O.P. Nos.2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit through the Sub-Collector, Boudh and Civil Supplies Officer-in-charge, Boudh, justifying the action of the opp...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrushna Dash Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT760
Pradip Mohanty, J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur, in G.R. Case No. 761 of 2003 in an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. Or-02-Q-6804 Maruti Mini Van. The vehicle in question was seized on 1.8.2003 by the Badachana Police in connection with the offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrqpic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the 'Act'). The petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur for interim release of the seized vehicle in question on the ground that the petitioner had absolutely no knowledge about the carrying of the puppy-husk and he had instructed the driver of the vehicle not to carry any objectionable materials i...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Modi and ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: [2005]141STC178(Orissa)
1. Heard Mr. J.B. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Additional Standing Counsel (C.T.).2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner No. 1 is a registered dealer and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 are unregistered dealers carrying on business of sale of clothes and ready-made garments in Angul. For the said business they have purchased different goods from Kolkata which were transported to Talcher. Thereafter, while the said goods were being transported from Talcher to Angul by a mini truck bearing registration No. ORW-393, the said mini truck was intercepted by the authorities of the Sales Tax Department. The Sales Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Circle, Angul issued a notice dated August 11, 2003 to the petitioner No. 10, namely, driver of the said mini truck in form VI-B prescribed under Rule 94 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 stating therein that no Government way bills were being carried with the goods in the said mini truck and there were no documents...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Nayak Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT609; 2003(II)OLR579
M. Papanna, J.1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Narayan Nayak has brought the aforesaid writ petitions seeking quashment of orders vide Annexures-4, 5 and 6 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Nimapara (Opposite party No, 4), Deputy Director, Consolidation, Range-1, Bhubaneswar (Opposite party No. 3) and Commissioner of Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (Opposite party No. 2), respectively, rejecting his claim for recording the disputed land in his favour basing on Registered Sale Deeds No. 1540 dated 10.3.1967 and 1931 dated 9.5.1970 by virtue of which he had purchased the said land from recorded owners. Since all the writ petitions involve similar questions of fact and law, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. For purpose of adjudication of these writ petitions together, relevant facts of the case are briefly set forth as below :One late Ratan Nayak had four so...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›