Orissa Court December 2006 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.
Orissa Chrome Export and Mining Company Ltd. Vs. Orissa Mining Corpora ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: 104(2007)CLT51
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The Writ Petitioner calls in question the order/notification dated 1.4.2005 as in Annexure-8 fixing the price for sale of Chrome Ore in the domestic market in respect of Chrome Ore of grade 40-42% at Rs. 3571/- as illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Prayer is made for quashing' the notification and for a direction to continue the supply as per rate and sale policy prevailing prior to 1.2.2005 (Annexure-3).2. The brief facts of the case of the Petitioner-M/s. Orissa Chrome Export and Mining Company Limited is that it is a small scale joint venture project with Industrial Promotion and Investment Company Limited (IPICOL), a Government of Orissa Undertaking, for processing of low grade unsaleable Chrome Ore in its Chrome Ore Beneficiation Plant (COBP) to produce the saleable Chrome Ore. The Petitioner's plant was installed on the assurance of the Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, which was reiterated in their letter dated 26.4.1999 to its joint venture partner IPICOL for...
Samal Barrage Employees' Union and Anr. and Vs. Chief Engineer and Bas ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT681; [2007(114)FLR382]
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. In the present review petitions, the Petitioners pray tor review of the Judgment dated 13-04-2005 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 7902 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 9787 of 2003. By the said Judgment, both the Writ Petitions were disposed of, and by relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court Union of India v. Deep Chand Pandey : AIR1993SC382 and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India : [1997]228ITR725(SC) , it was held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petitions. It was also observed that since the matters are pending before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which is the Court of first instance having ample power and jurisdiction to effectively deal with the grievance of the employees, the Petitioners should pursue their remedy before the Tribunal.2. Mr. Bijan Ray, Learned senior advocate, appearing for the Petitioners contended that the plea of retrenchment is not pending before the Tribunal nor had the Petitioners been retrenched. He further c...
State of Orissa Vs. Kelu Charan Panigrahi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)OLR293
M.M. Das, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 4.12.1990 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 18 of 1988.2. From the facts of the case, it is revealed that on the information of the Inspector, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack lodged before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Central Division, Cuttack on 5.5.1988, a formal F.I.R. was registered under Section 7/9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'). After investigation, a P.R. was filed. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent No. 1-accused was a dealer of Essential Commodities under the Act. On 15.4.1988, the informant, Inspector of Vigilance Cell, visited the shop of the respondent No. 1 accused and conducted a surprise check with the help of Inspector, Shri S.B. Patnaik and Sub-Inspector, namely, Shri Prahallad Das. On perusal of the Books of Accounts and the stock register of the control commodities maintained by the respondent No. 1, for the year 198...
Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jyotirmayee @ ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC893; AIR2007Ori85; 103(2007)CLT308
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Although this Letters Patent Appeal was listed for orders, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, it was taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of by this Judgment.2. The Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.A. No. 203/2000 dismissing the appeal subject to the observation and direction that a sum of Rs. 25, 000/- which was kept-in fixed deposit, be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal with accrued interest and the Insurance Company was to deposit the balance amount before the Claims Tribunal is impugned in this appeal. By way of an interim order in this appeal this Court has directed that out of the compensation awarded an amount of Rs. 10, 000/- shall be paid to the injured and the balance amount of Rs. 1, 50,000/- together with the interest as directed by the Tribunal be deposited with the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court within two weeks and upon deposit of such ...
Prahallad SwaIn and anr. Vs. Sri Mallikeswar Swamy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT234
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The order dated 25-9-1997 (Annexure-I) passed by the District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Misc. Appeal No. 63 of 1991 is assailed in this Writ Petition filed in the year 2003, i.e. after nine years of the said order. Explaining the delay, it is submitted that the Petitioners who were the Appellants in the aforesaid Misc. Appeal (Defendants in T.S. No. 44/69 of the Court of the then Subordinate Judge, Berhampur) had filed Civil Revision No. 302 of 1997 before this Court challenging the aforesaid order of the District Judge vide Annexure-I and that Revision was disposed of on 11-11-2003 as not maintainable whereafter the present Writ Petition was filed.2. The grievance of the Petitioners is with regard to rejection of a petition filed by them under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC praying to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 31-3-1982 in the Title Suit No. 44 of 1969 and registered as MJC No. 85 of 1982. When the said MJC was sub judice, the Court of the then Subordinate Judge...
Syama Takri Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)OLR184
ORDERPradip Mohanty, J.1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been implicated in11(a) C.C. No. 255 of 2006 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Koraput for the alleged commission of offence under Section 47(a) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act (for short 'the Act'). It is alleged that on 09.07.2006 at 6.00 p.m. the S.I. of Excise, Pottangi along with other staff, while conducting patrol duty, found the petitioner selling I.D. liquor. On being asked, he failed to produce any licence or authority for the same. Therefore, the S.I. of Excise seized the I.D. liquor (10 litres in quantity) contained in a plastic jerry can, prepared seizure list, arrested the accused-petitioner and forwarded him to the Court.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel.3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Koraput has illegally rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner by applying the provisions of the Act as...
Santosh Kumar Behera Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)OLR166
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the process of auction of Sand Sairat Source namely, Chitrotpala River Sand, Shantpur, in favour of opposite party No. 5.2. The allegation in the writ petition is that the process of auction of the said Sairat Source has been conducted without issuing public notice as required under Rule-38 of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 and it was done in such a manner so as to favour the opposite party No. 5 by accepting his bid.3. The main ground of challenge is that the date of holding of public auction was fixed to 25.2.2006. From the order sheet which has been disclosed in the writ petition it appears that on 17th February, 2006 the papers were put up before the opposite party No. 4, Tahasildar, Salipur, and on that date he directed issuance of notice for public auction on 25.2.2006. But it appears that the impugned notice was issued on 16.2.2006.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire pr...
J.K. Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(210)ELT501(Ori)
ORDERA.K. Ganguly, J.1. These three reference cases being CE REF Case Nos. 10 of 2003, 11 of 2003 and 12 of 2003 were heard analogously as they arise out of a common final order dated 28th January, 2003 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). By the said final order, by a majority decision, the three appeals filed by the J.K. Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Company') were rejected. Certain questions of law were framed in the statement of cases forwarded by the Tribunal. But when hearing commenced before this Bench, this Court, with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, re-framed the questions of law which are common in all these cases and are as follows:1. Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that the Assessee Company had not satisfactorily explained the difference in quantities in the two sets of records, the statutory records under the Central Excise Act and the...
Nilamadhab Nayak Vs. Lambodar Turuk and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)OLR179
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging a judgment dated 26th February, 2005 passed by the District Judge, Koraput, in Election Petition No. 1 of 2003 filed by one Lambodar Turuk.2. By the said impugned judgment the District Judge held that the election petition has merit and is to be allowed and came to a finding that the rejection of nomination papers of Lambodar Turuk by the Election Officer was improper. Since the rejection of nomination paper was improper the District Judge set aside the entire process of election for Ward No. 13 of the N.A.C., Umerkote, and the said election was declared null and void and the election of opposite party No. 2 in the said election petition, who is the petitioner in the present writ petition, was set aside. A casual vacancy in Ward No. 13 of the N.A.C., Umerkote, was declared and the District Magistrate/Collector, Nabarangpur, was directed to take up all such proceedings to fill up the said vacancy by a bye-election. After f...
Namita Das Vs. Pradyumna Kumar Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 103(2007)CLT305
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Challenging the Order dated 20-7-2005 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Khurda in C.S.No.118 of 2004 rejecting the prayer of the present Petitioner who is Defendent No. 1 in the said suit for staying the proceedings of the suit, the present Writ Petition has been filed.2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, one Prafulla Kumar Mohanty during his lifetime by a registered Will dated 5-5-1995 had bequeathed a land in her favour measuring Ac.0.565 dec. appertaining to Plot No. 622, Khata No. 5 of Mouza-Gurujanga. Accordingly after the death of Prafulla Kumar Mohanty the Petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004 before the District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar praying for grant of Letters of Administration which case is pending.3. Opposite Parties 1 to 4 who are sons and daughters of said late Prafulla Kumar Mohanty have filed the aforesaid Civil Suit challenging the said Will in favour of the Petitioner. Stating that as the issue to be decided in both the Civil S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »