Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR620; (2008)16VST85(Orissa)
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have interalia challenged the validity of Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (Orissa Act 11 of 1999). The Act was enacted by the State Legislative under Entry 52 of List-II of 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India, which came into force with effect from 1.12.1999. Earlier a batch of writ petitions was filed before this Court challenging the validity of the Act. This Court declined to strike down the Act as ultra vires with the following directions.(1) Unless the basic ingredients, i.e. Entry of scheduled goods for the purpose pf consumption, use or sale into a local area of the State are satisfied, the provisions of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 shall not be attracted;(2) The goods which enter into a local area/areas only for the purpose of transit will not be subject to entry tax; and(3) Every manufacturer of scheduled goods under Section 26 of the Orissa Entry Tax Act shall collect by way of Entry Tax amount equal to the tax pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT93
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. These two Writ Petitions are related to the same property and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 3777 of 2002 M/s. Prity Industries installed a cooking fuel plant for cooking purpose. The Petitioner-industry was registered as a Small Scale Industrial unit with the District Industries Center. The same was installed at Badakera in the district of Angul for manufacturing of cooking fuel from Sal leaves, paddy straw, sugarcane straw which is substitute to LB. Gas and other cooking gasses for domestic purpose. Financial assistance in the form of term loan was provided by the Opposite Party Corporation to the tune of Rs. 10,81,500.00 which was disbursed in the month of May, 1995 towards factory shed, installation and acquisition of plant and machineries, its installation and electrification in the month of May, 1995. The Petitioner also acquired land to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT84
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. These are two Writ Petitions filed by M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited against the decision of Industry Facilitation Council.2. Writ Petition bearing O.J.C. No. 4271 of 2000 was initially filed for quashing the impugned award dated 24.3.2000 made against it by the Industry Facilitation Council as arbitrator under the provisions of the Interest on delayed payments to Small Scale & Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'IDPSC') which was kept in abeyance for a period of one month and vide Order Dated 11.7.2000 was restored directing the Managing Director, Rourkela Steel Plant, SAIL, Rourkela to pay a sum of Rs. 24,86,998/- to Opp. Party No. 2 i.e. M/S. Modern Industries, Rourkela with interest @ 18% being one and half times the prime lending rate of the S.B.I., compounded with monthly rest, towards the cost for extra works/deviation/delays in payment/non-availability of free issue of materials/amendment in drawings etc. The intere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : IV(2008)BC137; 106(2008)CLT67; 2008(I)OLR750
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. In this writ petition filed by the petitioner who was a participant in the tender proceedings for execution of F.D.R. to Dumduma MIP in Boudh Block, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the work order issued to opposite party No. 2 Saroj Kumar Nayak rejecting tender papers of the petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case are that the tender for the work of F.D.R. to Dumduma Minor Irrigation Project in Boudh Block in Boudh district was invited vide notice No. 3567 dated 24.10.2006 by the Executive Engineer, Kandhamal M.I. Division, Phulbani (opp. party No. 1) fixing the date of sale and receipt of tenders from 13.11.2006 to 16.11.2006 up to 5 P.M. in the office of the Assistant Engineer concerned, Executive Engineer concerned and Superintending Engineer, Southern Minor Irrigation Circle, Berhampur respectively. The date of opening of tenders was fixed to 18.11.2006 at 11 A.M. in the office of the Executive Engineer, Kandhamal Minor Irrigation Division, Phulbani (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(1)OLR519
ORDERR.N. Biswal, J.Even though the case was listed to date for admission, on the request and consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.Heard Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned Addl. Government Advocate representing the State. The petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 25.3.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur in G.R. Case No. 291 of 2001, wherein he took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304A of I.P.C.1. Succinctly stated, the prosecution is that on 16.8.2001, while the informant and his wife Ramita Kumari Sethi were coming from Ramguda to their native village, in the district of Kendrapara, on the way at Gunupur, the latter complained pain in her stomach and as such, she was immediately taken to the clinic of the petitioner, a doctor at Gunupur and on examination, it was detected that she was carrying 8/9 months of pregnancy. Petitioner treate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR910
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1998 convicting the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short '1.P.C.'). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been awarded either for commission of offences under Sections 364 or 201 I.P.C.2. The family of the deceased and the appellant were staying in the same house occupying different sections. Oh 18.10.1996 morning when the deceased and his cousin Jitendra Patra were playing near their house, the appellant came in a cycle and took the deceased with him for a ride. The parents of the deceased learnt from Jitendra that the appellant had taken the deceased and, accordingly they waited till return of the appellant in the evening. When th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR992
B.P. Das, J.1. The petitioner-M/s. D. Ch. Guruvulu Son & Co., a partnership firm, in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the notice issued by the opposite party-Sales Tax, Officer under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act') for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, vide Annexure-1, on the ground of non-communication of the reasons for re-opening the assessment.2. The case of the petitioner, as depicted in the writ petition, briefly stated is thus: The petitioner is a partnership firm and carries on business of rice-milling and has established a small scale industry for processing tamarind seeds to tamarind dal amongst others. For the purpose of its milling business, it procures paddy and tamarind and mustard seeds and sells the processed products, such as rice, broken-rice, processed-tamarind, tamarind dal and mustard oil, etc. and accordingly it has registered itself as a dealer with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori69; 2008(2)ARBLR400(Orissa)
ORDERA.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Both these matters were heard together as common questions of fact and law are involved.2. Both the applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the 'said Act') were filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Chief Justice.3. The relevant facts are that the petitioner which is a Proprietorship concern was awarded the work of 'New Construction, One Time Repair and Renovation of CHC-1 at Belguntha including variations'. Another work which was given to the petitioner, which is the subject matter of ARBP No. 24 of 2005, is 'New Construction, One Time Repair and Renovation of CHC-1 at Polsara including variations'.4. Petitioner's case is that both the said works were completed in time and completion certificates were also issued to the petitioner by the concerned Engineer and thereafter the authorities have inaugurated the project. It is also the case of the petitioner that opposite parties too...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2909; 2008(I)OLR666
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. A common question having been raised in all these bail applications, the same were heard together. Out of the above cases, the BLAPL Nos. 7840, 8580, 8690, 8896, 8974, 8986, 9948, 10559, 10826, 11737 and 12903 of 2007 are applications filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. and BLAPL Nos. 11222 and 12061 of 2007 are filed under Sections 439, Cr.P.C. In all these cases offence under Section 47 (a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') has been alleged.2. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing for the State raised a preliminary objection with regard to grant of bail to the petitioners. He contended that in view of the new Section 85-A introduced into the State Act, which has come into force with effect from 01.06.2006, a bar has been created for granting bail to the accused, who is alleged to have committed an offence under the Act punishable for a term of imprisonment of seven years or more. Such accused can only be granted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2008)106CALLT287; 2008(I)OLR935
M.M. Das, J.1. The original petitioner- Nanda Kishore Barik knocked the doors of justice by filing the present writ petition in the year 1996 at a ripe old age of 74 years, for quashing the order under Annexure-9 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in its Ministry of Home Affairs to the original petitioner. By Annexure-9, the claim of the original petitioner for grant of freedom fighters' pension under the Swantantra Sainik Sammana Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.S.S. Scheme') was rejected. Relevant portion of Annexure-9 is as follows:In pursuance of directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the case of Sh. Barik has been reconsidered on the basis of the reports furnished by the State Govt., and in accordance with the provisions of the scheme and instructions issued thereunder, but it has not been found possible to grant him pension as the official evidence produced by him does not confirm his claimed jail suffering of six months or more and the perso...
Tag this Judgment!