Orissa Court October 2008 Judgments
Ganesh Prasad Naik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-2008
Reported in: 2009(I)OLR270
B.K. Patel, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.05.1987 passed in T.R. No. 21 of 1987 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur convicting the appellant under Sections 5(1)(d)/5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the 'P.C. Act') as well as Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'I.P.C.') and sentencing him to undergo R.1. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo R.l. for one month, under Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act and R.l. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.1. for 15 days, under Section 161 of the I.P.C.2. Prosecution case, in nut-shell, is as follows:P.W.1, the informant-decoy had earlier executed work contract of Nuagada-Maliguda road under Nandahandi Block as contractor at the estimated cost of Rs. 10,000/-. When the appellant was paid for the work on 09.01.1985 towards his final bill, he had to pay 5% of the total amount, i.e. Rs. 500/-, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mayadhar Jena Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-2008
Reported in: 2009(I)OLR744
M.M. Das, J.1. The case of the petitioner is that he is the elected Sarpanch of Kasipada Grama Panchayat. The predecessor of the petitioner was asked by the Collector to convene a special meeting as per Section 124 (3) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), for taking action against the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. The said predecessor - Sarpanch convened a general body meeting in which the Grama Panchayat resolved not to suspend the Secretary. The said resolution was approved by the Sub-Collector. When the matter stood thus, the present petitioner was elected to the office of Sarpanch. Under Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the Collector of the district intimated him that though the Sarpanch was instructed to take action against the Grama Panchayat Secretary as per Rule 216(b) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, vide office letter No. 1128/ GP dated 15.7.2008, but no action has been taken by the Sarpanch as required and the Grama Panchayat has submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Banki Muhan Ramachandi Thakurani Vs. Hajuri Prafulla Chandra Khuntia a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)OLR41
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This contempt application has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 27.6.2000 passed in Misc. Case No. 1555 of 2000 arising out of O.J.C. No. 5705 of 1999.2. The writ application has been filed challenging the order of the O.E.A. Collector, Puri in Annexure-1 as well as Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O.E.A. Revision No. 9 of 1995. In the writ application the above Misc. Case was filed for grant of injunction and by order dated 27.6.2000 this Court considering the nature of dispute restrained the contemnors from alienating the disputed land till disposal of the writ application. In the contempt petition, it is alleged that the said order was passed in presence of learned Counsel appearing for the contemnors and therefore, it is construed to be within the knowledge of the contemnors. It is also alleged that the contemnors after receiving the order and being well aware about the direction given by this Court executed the registered sale deed on 27.12...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Kishore Chandra Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-2008
Reported in: 2009(I)OLR262
L. Mohapatra, J.1. In these two writ applications, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack rendered on 9th August, 2002 in O.A. No. 542 of 1995 is legally sustainable. One Kishore Chandra Mohanty (Opposite Party No. 1 in W.P.(C) No. 224 of 2003 and Opposite Party No. 4 in W.P.(C) No. 4493 of 2002) was the applicant before the Tribunalin the aforesaid Original Application and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4493 of 2002 was Respondent No. 5 before the Tribunal.2. The case of Kishore Chandra Mohanty before the Tribunal was that he had served for more than three years as Inspector of Income Tax and appeared in the departmental examination held during June/July 1995, but the results were published on 12.2.1996 and two annual increments were allowed to him with retrospective effect, i.e., from 3.7.1995. During the period from June/July, 1995 and publication of result on 12.2.1996, five posts of Income Tax Of...
Tag this Judgment!Gyanajeet Moharana and 2 ors. Vs. Binodini Pattanaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-2008
Reported in: 107(2009)CLT132; 2008(II)OLR926
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition has been allowed to the extent that the Court has set aside the order dated 18.8.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'CPC'). Learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar has remanded the case to the said Court for deciding the matter afresh.2. However, the writ Court has directed that in the interest of justice the plaintiff-respondent shall not be dispossessed from the disputed property till the application is decided afresh by the Court below.The instant appeal has been filed challenging only that direction on the ground that as the suit cannot be treated as having been instituted, unless the a...
Tag this Judgment!Harekrishna Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-2008
Reported in: 107(2009)CLT137; 2008(II)OLR932
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.The petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order passed by the authorities under the Orissa Public Distribution System Order, where under the petitioner's licence as a retailer under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 for Ward No. 16 of Cuttack Municipal Corporation was suspended on the ground that he was arrested in - connection with a Criminal Case by the Purighat Police Station, which is now sub-judiced in G.R. Case No. 484 of 2006 before the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack with regard to allegations under Sections 419/420, I.P.C.Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of a retailer in a Criminal Case, ipso facto, does not entail suspension of the said retailer. It is only Clause 15 of the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, provision has been made for cancellation of licence, when a retailer/dealer etc. is convicted in a Criminal Cas...
Tag this Judgment!U.K. Mahapatra and Co. Represented by Its Partner Sri Sudhansu Ranjan ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Ori)328; [2009]308ITR133(Orissa); [2009]176TAXMAN293(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the action of opposite parties 1 and 2 in conducting survey in their business premises and impounding books of account/documents belonging to their clients in course of the survey and retention of those books of account/documents on the ground that the said survey was conducted illegally and all the consequential actions taken by opposite parties 1 and 2 were in violation of the provisions of Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.T. Act').2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is a Chartered Accountants firm and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are its partners. They are engaged in the practice of accountancy involving auditing, consultancy, financing and other services to their clients under the provisions of Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.A. Act, 1949'). On 28th May, 2008, opposite party No. 1 conducted survey under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Bisra Stone Lime Company Ltd. Vs. Subasini Naik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-2008
Reported in: 2009(I)OLR250
S.C. Parija, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment/ award dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rourkela, in W.C. Case No. 26 of 2001, awarding an amount of Rs. 1,35,560/- as compensation.2. The sole question of law raised by the employer in this appeal is as to whether the death of the deceased workman due to diabetes mellitus, hypertension and cerebral haemorrhage can be said to have any causal connection with the employment and can it be said that the death of the said workman was due to an accident arising out of and in course of his employment, so as to attract the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.3. 'The brief facts of the case is that the deceased Samaru Naik was an employee under the appellant and was working as a Security Guard, On 7.1.2000 he was on 'B' shift duty at the General Office of the company. In course of his duty, he felt uncomfortable and became ill. He informed about his illness to the Securi...
Tag this Judgment!Swapan Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)OLR58
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Refusal to grant pensionary benefits to an ex-Lieutenant of Indian Navy on the ground that he had been dismissed with disgrace from service is the subject-matter of this Writ application.2. Bereft of unnecessary details the short facts necessary for appreciation of this case are as follows:The petitioner had joined Indian Navy on 20th January, 1973. After successful completion of training he was posted as Engineering Mechanic, II Class on 20th, July 1974. In course of time by dint of sincerity and merit he had been promoted to the cadre of Lieutenant with effect from 1.1.1985. In the year 1993 while he was working as a Logistics Officer in the ship INS Jamuna allegations having been levelled with regard to certain omissions and commissions, five charges were framed against him. After serving a charge-sheet he was put on trial in Court Martial. The initiation of trial before the Court Martial and the charges levelled against him were just like bolt from the blue. He was...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunita Mohapatra Vs. Suresh Dhanuka
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-2008
Reported in: 2009(I)OLR400
Sanju Panda, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 22.5.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda in ARB. (P) No. 576 of 2007 filed by the present respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, 'the Act').2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:On or about 1 st April, 1999 an agreement was executed between the appellant (Sunita Mohapatra) and the respondent (Suresh Dhanuka) to carry on business in the name and style of 'Abhilasha'. Sunita Mohapatra carries on business in the name and style of 'Natureprc Biocare Inc.' as the sole proprietress thereof. The said agreement was for a period of five years from 1st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2004. It was further extended on 1st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2009 by mutual consent of both the parties. As per the said agreement, it was agreed that the respondent would have sole marketing and distribution rights of the products manufactured by the appellant. The respondent would not take up...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »