Orissa Court April 2006 Judgments
Reliance Industries Ltd.-operator Vs. Assessing Authority and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT122; 2006(I)OLR802; [2006]148STC324(Orissa)
B.P. Das, J.1. The petitioner herein, Reliance Industries Ltd.-Operator, has filed these two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality and validity of the orders assessment passed by the Assessing Authority, Jagatsinghpur Circle, Paradeep, O.P. No. 1, under Section 7(4) of the Orissa Entertainment Tax Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the O.E.T. Act') and Rule 10(2) of the Orissa Entry Tax Rules, 1999 (hereinafter called 'the O.E.T. Rules') for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively as well as the demand notices, vide Annexure-1,As the facts and the points of law involved in both the writ petitions are common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner has registered itself as a dealer under O.P. No. 1-Assessing Authority, Jagatsinghpur, and has been assessed to Orissa Entry Tax under Section 7(4) of the O.E.T. Act and Rule 10(2) of the O.E.T. Rules and demands have been rai...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Agrawala and ors. Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT196
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioners assail the judgment dated 6.4.1995 passed in H.R.C. Case No. 17 of 1986 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sambalpur holding the petitioners as wilful defaulters which was confirmed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur in H.R.C. Appeal No. 1 of 1995 dated 28.11.1997.2. The brief fact of the petitioners' case bereft of unnecessary details is that the opposite party No. 3 filed H.R.C. Case No. 17 of 1986 in the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sambalpur under Section 7(2)(i) of the H.R.C. Act, 1967 for eviction of the father of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from October, 1985 to May, 1986. The H.R.C. case was decreed ex parte against the father of the petitioners. However, the petitioners having come to know about the ex parte decree, filed misc. case No. 1 of 1987 under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. The ex parte order was recalled and the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Kumar Patel Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori140
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application prays for quashing the decision taken by the opposite party No. 2 disqualifying him in the technical bid and for a further direction to the opposite party No. 2 to allow the petitioner to rectify the defects, if any, in the technical bid and for consideration of the financial bid along with the opposite party No. 5.2. The case of the petitioner is that he carries on contract work under different departments of the State Government and other authorities and is registered as a Special Class Contractor. On 6-9-2005 the Chief Engineer, Rural Works-Ill, Orissa issued a notice inviting tenders for different works under PMGSY and the said notice was published in the daily 'The Samaj' on 10-9-2005. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his tender for package No. OR-30-ADB-02/1 under the Rural Works Department, Sundargarh as notified under Annexure-3 of the advertisement. The estimated cost being more than one crore and...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Moda Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2236; AIR2006Ori167
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner assails the communication made by the Life Insurance Corporation dated 26-3-1998 (Annexure-4) repudiating the claim under the Insurance Policy in the name of his son Late Mohesh Moda.2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case is that his son Late Mohesh Moda had made a proposal for Life Insurance on 7-2-1995 for a death benefit of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The second premium was paid on 15-8-1995 within the permissible grace period of one month. However, the third premium was paid on 3-4-1996, i.e. 17 days after the grace period was over and since the policy lapsed, an application for revival was made and the policy was revived. The petitioner's son died on 12-4-1996. After the death of his son, the petitioner filed a claim for the benefit under the policy, but the same has been illegally repudiated on the ground that the policy holder made deliberate misstatement and withheld material information from the LIC regarding health at the time of getting the policy r...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3211
ORDERPradip Mohanty, J.1. This revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 19-2-2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nayagarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 26/51/ 37 of 1997/1992/1991, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the J.M.F.C., Ranpur in G.R. Case No. 113 of 1987.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10-10-1987 at about 7.00 a.m., while the victim Bali Dei, an old lady, was proceeding on the left side of the road towards the temple of Lord Siva, a bus bearing registration number ORC 1155, which was coming from Godipada side in a reckless manner being driven by the accused-petitioner, dashed against her. As a result, she fell down and the bus ran over her causing her instantaneous death. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged before the Ranpur P.S., on receipt of which investigation commenced and after closure of investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 279/304-A, IPC. But the learned J.M.F.C., on perusal of police papers,...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Narasinghal Aggarwal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori148; 2006(4)ARBLR93(Orissa)
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2002 passed in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 188 of 2001 by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar rejecting the application filed under Section 34 of the Act.2. Pursuant to the tender call notice dated 2-12-1991 issued by the appellant for construction of Vertical Extension to the Telephone Exchange building at Koraput the respondent submitted his tender. The tender submitted by the respondent was accepted and an agreement was executed on 5-2-1992 between the parties. The agreement provides that the project should be completed within 15 (fifteen) months apart from other provisions for rescission of contract and adjudication of dispute by way of arbitration. The dispute in this case arose due to rescission of the contract by the appellant on 21-9-1994 and the same was referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Mohapatra Vs. Republic of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: 102(2006)CLT837
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Petitioner as accused faced trial for alleged commission of offences under Sections 409/467/468/471 of the I.P.C. in S.P.E. Case No. 30/1991 in the Court of Learned Addl. C.J.M.-Cum-Spl. C.J.M. (C.B.I.) Bhubaneswar. Admittedly the Petitioner was working as Extra Departmental Sub-Post Master at Dala Sub-Post Office. The criminal action was set in motion on the basis of an F.I.R. filed, inter alia, alleging that the Petitioner had misappropriated the money deposited in various Savings Bank Accounts, Recurring Deposit Accounts, Term Deposit Accounts of different account holders by manipulating postal records. It was also alleged that the dishonestly sold some National Saving Certificates to different persons, but failed to account for the amount collected in the postal accounts. On the basis of an F.I.R., enquiry was conducted and charge sheet was submitted for commission of offences under Sections 409,420 an 468 of the I.P.C.2. The prosecution in order to substantiat...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Panibudi Chulia and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC743; 2007ACJ164; [2006(110)FLR119]; [2006(4)JCR491]; 2006(I)OLR715
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal arises out of an Award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The Full Bench is called upon to answer the reference made by the Hon'ble Single Judge on the following issue:Whether in absence of a provision alike Section 149 of the M.V. Act, 1988 the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation can be directed to determine the issue between the insurer and the insured regarding allegation of violation of policy conditions and to proceed for recovery of the amount so paid to the third party from the insured. 2. Before answering the reference it is necessary to refer to the facts and law involved in the case. Claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Sananda Chulia. Said Sananda Chulia was working as a driver under one Bhimsen Behera in his trekker bearing registration No. OR-15-B-0914. On 12.1.1997 while the deceased was driving the aforesaid vehicle, met with an accident near Atabira, as a result of which he sustained bodily injuries and ultimat...
Tag this Judgment!Biram Majhi Vs. Pramila Giri Alias Nayak
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ori124
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. The respondent in the Election Petition, who is the returned candidate, previously filed Misc. Case No. 11 of 2005, inter alia, praying to hear the question of maintainability of the Election Petition as a preliminary issue.2. By order dated 3-3-2006, this Court after taking into consideration various case laws cited by the respective parties and on analysing the facts involved in the case and holding that Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to an Election Petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), came to the conclusion that by applying Order 14, CPC, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that all issues framed should be taken up for hearing together and not in a piecemeal manner.3. Now, again the respondent has filed Misc. Case No. 4 of 2006 praying for recalling or modifying the order dated 3-3-2006 passed in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2005. On hearing the submissions made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sambit Patnaik Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR692
A.K. Samantaray, J.1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the communication dated 3.11.2001 issued by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd., (O.P. No.5) (hereinafter referred to as 'M.C.L.') intimating therein regarding non-consideration of his promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade on the ground of pendency of a vigilance case and has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to issue promotion order in his favour from the date, i.e. 19.12.2000 on which date his counterparts have been promoted and he has further made a prayer for consequential benefits.2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition by the petitioner is stated as follows:The petitioner was initially appointed under the opposite parties on 6.4.1990 and has been performing his duties under the opposite parties without any adverse remarks and blemish. During the course of his service, the petitioner was promoted from E-1 to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »