Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR256
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the selection of opposite party No. 5 for grant of exclusive privilege in respect of the IMFL Off shop at New Bus Stand, Berhampur and for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 3 to reject the application made by opposite party No. 5 in respect of the aforesaid Off shop and to declare him as the lottery winner being the remaining qualified and sole applicant for the said shop.2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that by notice dated 5.7.2007, the Collector, Ganjam invited applications for the grant of exclusive privilege for retail sale of India Made Foreign Liquor (OFF) shops in respect of six shops as contained m the list enclosed to the notice in the district of Ganjam which included the IMFL OFF shop at New Bus-stand, Berhampur for the period from the date of grant till 31.3.2008 with which we are concerned in this writ petition. The last date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2009Ori38
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur in T.A. No. 17 of 1982 confirming the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Jagatsinghpur in T.M.S. No. 44 of 1978.2. Plaintiffs case in essence was that he is the owner of the suit land and he mortgaged it to the original defendant-Daitari Sahu on 25-7-1961 and delivered possession of the same. As per terms of the mortgage, defendant was to remain in possession of the suit land and enjoy the usufructs thereof, in lieu of interest and to re-deliver possession of the suit land to the plaintiff on payment of the principal loan amount of Rs. 100/-. The plaintiff pleaded that in the meantime amendment to Section 17 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act came into force in 1975 and in view of that amended provision, the mortgage was automatically discharged and the defendant was legally duty bound to re-deliver the suit land to the plaintiff, but the defendant neither deliver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT573
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Orissa challenging an Order Dated 22.3.2001 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in O.J.C. No. 8379 of 1997 wherein the eligibility to receive the grant-in-aid has been held to be from the date of initial appointment of the Respondent and not from the date when he acquired the requisite qualification.By the impugned order the Learned Single Judge has issued direction to the Appellants to release the salary of the Respondent from 1.6.1985 to 31.5.1907 towards 1/3rd grant-in-aid, from 1.6.1987 to 31,5.1989 towards 2/3rds grant-in-aid and from 1.6.1989 to 23.9.1990 towards full salary cost within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.2. The facts of the case which give rise to the present appeal are as follows:Swarnachuda College, Mitrapur in the district of Balasore in which the Respondent was working as a lecturer in English during the relevant period, received concurrence of the Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR239
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') filed by the Insurance Company against an award dated 13.12.2004 passed by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') Cuttack, in Misc. Case No. 902 of 2002.2. The case of the claimant-petitioners before the learned Tribunal was that on 2.11.2002, one Truck bearing Registration No.ORY-4272 was capsized on Tata-Duburi road. The offending Crane bearing Registration No. OSU-8178 came for lifting the Truck which was capsized on the road. The Crane while turning over was capsized on the deceased Dibakar Purti, who was the driver of vehicle, bearing Registration No. ORY-925 and was witnessing the lifting process of the capsized Truck. As a result of which the deceased died at the spot. After the accident the deceased was taken to Danagadi Hospital, where post mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The accident too...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT488
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 4th of September, 2003 passed by the III-MACT, Balasore in M.A.C. Case No. 272/229(C) of 1997-95 by which it has been held that the insurers of the offending truck and trekker were equally liable to pay the compensation with interest to the claimants.2. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 12.06.1995 at about 5.30 PM while the deceased-Mahendra Sethi was returning to his village in a trekker from Jalada to Bari in a marriage party, a truck bearing registration NO. AP-16T-6845 coming from Bhadrak side dashed against the trekker on NH-5 near Matiapada Dhaba. Further case of the claimants was that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. As a result of the said accident the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to the said injuries. According...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT493
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. In this writ application, the Petitioner-company M/s. Arvind Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. seeks to challenge an Order Dated 17.2.2007 passed by the Addl. Commissioner Sales Tax, Southern Zone, Cuttack in Revision Case No. PU/185/06-07 (vide Annexure-1 to the present writ application) dismissing the Petitioner's revision application and affirming the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, levying tax and penalty on the Petitioner under Section 74(5) of the Orissa Value Added Tax (OVAT) Act, 2004 amounting to Rs. 11,71,980/- on the ground that the consignment of the goods being brought into the State of Orissa by the Petitioner was not accompanied with the prescribed declaration as required under Section 74(2)(a) of the OVAT Act, 2004 read with Rule 79(2) of the OVAT Rules, 2005.2. The order of the Sales Tax Officer was earlier challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 324 of 2007 and this Court by Order Dated 12.1.2007 was pleased to direct release of the vehicle ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4740
I. Mahanty, J.1. This writ petition was registered on the basis of a letter addressed by the petitioner Kabita Das, wife of late Bhaguni Das @ Bhagirathi Das of village Izapur, District-Jajpur in the State of Orissa bringing to the notice of this Court that in the night of 28-3-2007 at about 10.30 P.M. at village Izapur, accused Kedar Narayan Parida and nineteen others including his sons attacked her husband late Bhagirathi Das, most heinously in a group to take political revenge and killed him. On the basis of the FIR lodged to that effect, Mangalpur P.S. Case No. 28 of 2007 was registered and on that basis G. R. Case No. 468 of 2007 has been registered in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Jaipur.2. In her written complaint presented before this Court in person, the petitioner has stated that Kedar Narayan Parida is the main accused in the murder case and his sons are very influential persons of the ruling party. Although four months have elapsed, only three persons, out of nineteen accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2008]307ITR441(Orissa); 2008(II)OLR175
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'ITAT)) in ITA No. 401(CTK)/98 and CO. No. 109 (CTK)/1998. This Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the cross objection filed by the Appellant had become academic and infructuous?(ii) Whether after issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, it is not open to the assessing officer to make adjustments or pass an order under Section 143(1) of the Act, and he has to make the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act ?2. The relevant facts, in nutshell, which give rise to the present appeal are as follows:The appellant is a Public Limited Company engaged in business of manufacture and sale of sponge iron. It was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT309
A.K. Parichha, J.1. The Plaintiff is in appeal against the Judgment of the Learned District Judge, Cuttack in T.A. No. 59 of 1997 confirming the Judgment and decree of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in T.S. No. 325 of 1995.2. The Appellant filed the suit for declaration of his right, title over the suit land on the ground that the suit land was lying vacant and his father started possessing it in the year 1947 and since then his father and he himself (Plaintiff) are in continuous possession of the suit land and have acquired title over the same by adverse possession. Though the Government Pleader appeared for Defendant No. 1-State of Orissa, none of the Defendants filed written statement. The Plaintiff examined four witnesses and produced the copy of the 80, C.P.C. notice, postal A.D. and certified copy of R.O.R. in respect of Khata No. 236, which were marked as Exts. 1 to 3 respectively. On consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, the Trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT473
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is a Defendant's appeal against the Judgment of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar passed in T.A. No. 21/95/14 of 1996 confirming the Judgment and decree recorded by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Keonjhar in T.S. No. 15 of 1991.2. The present Respondent as Plaintiff filed the suit claiming title over the suit land on the plea that he purchased the same from the recorded tenant by means of Ext. 1 and possessed it thereafter. On the other hand, the Defendant claimed that he is in possession of Ac. 0.10 decimals put of the purchased land of the Plaintiff by constructing house thereon since more than 50 years and thereby has acquired title over the same by adverse possession. The Trial Court decreed the right, title of the Plaintiff over the suit land and also ruled that he is entitled to recover possession of the suit land along with house constructed thereon. The said decree was confirmed in the appeal and hence the present second appeal.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!