Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009CriLJ193; 2008(II)OLR25
ORDERB.K. Patel, J.1. These two revisions are directed against the order dated 14.3.2007 passed in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jajpur in ST. Case No. 28/08/2006 by which the petitioners have been arrayed as accused persons and summoned to face trial under Section 302 I.P.C.2. Allegation in S.T. Case No. 28/08/2006 relates to commission of murder of deceased Prasanna Behera. On detection of the decomposed dead body of the deceased in an abandoned quarters meant for occupation of Junior Engineer of the Irrigation Office at Jenapur, an U.D. case was registered and enquired into. Subsequently, on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by S.l. of Police, Dharmasala P.S. Case No. 159 of 2005 was registered against unknown accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Bijaya Kumar Patra @ Atiri under Sections 341/342/ 325/302/201 I.P.C. By order dated 22.2.2006 passed i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori119; [2008(4)JCR183]; 2008(I)OLR796; 2008(5)AIRKarR55(FB).
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. The dispute, is whether the Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (in short 'Act 1972') are obliged to release the vehicle from the Confiscation Proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation (in short 'O.S.F.C.') when such vehicle were purchased on being financed by the O.S.F.C. and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle.2. The writ petitioner made a request to the D.F.O., Puri Division at Khurda for release of the sale proceeds of the confiscated vehicle, i.e., Truck bearing Registration No. OSP - 3795, and as per the communication letter, Annexure-3, the D.F.O. refused to release the sale proceeds.3. Relying on the ratio in the case of Orissa State Financial Corporation v. Range Officer, Sukinda and Ors. : AIR2002Ori130 the writ petitioner approached this Court for an order in its favour and consequentially ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR793
ORDERHeard learned Counsel for the parties.1. These two Company Appeals namely, COA No. 2 of 2008 and 3 of 2003 have been filed arising out of the proceeding of winding up of M/s. Orissa Flour Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called as the 'said Company') at the instance of the petitioning creditor who is respondent herein. Though both the appeals have been filed beyond time, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of both the appeals by the following order.2. Learned counsel for the Company has submitted that this petition for winding up was admitted without any application of mind by the learned Company Judge. The admission has been done by the following orders dated 24.3.1994.Heard. Admit.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before admission of the Company petition, learned Company Judge will have to form a prima facie view before admitting the winding up petition.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that nothing appears from the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT589; (2008)15VST484(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This batch of tax revision petitions filed by Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Kansbahal, Sundargarh, has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in refusing to accept the declarations in form '' and form 'C' and whether such refusal on the part of the Tribunal does not run contrary to the law laid down by the honourable Orissa High Court in Oriental Chemical Industries v. State of Orissa [1979] 44 STC 241.2. To bring out the true essence of the dispute, the following questions are formulated.(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the declaration forms produced before it?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee accepted the view taken by Revenue and changed its stand at a later stage regarding nature of the transaction as inter-State sale and produced necessary declaration forms, those should have been accept...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori161; 2008(4)ARBLR563(Orissa)
ORDERA.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the 'said Act') was filed on 10-12-2007 before this Court, On such petition being filed, this Court issued the notice on 14-12-2007 to the opposite parties. Pursuant to such notice, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and made submissions.3. The case, in the present petition is that the parties have entered into a share-purchase agreement for effecting sale of 50 lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10/- each in the company named M/s. Samleshwari Ferrometals Pvt. Ltd. and also the shares to be allotted on the pending applications in respect of the said Company. It was also stated that in terms of the agreement, the opposite parties are required to pay advance of Rs. 2 crores by 30-11-2006 and to pay the entire balance amount by 31-3-2007.4. However, disputes and differences arose between the parties. There is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008ACJ2064; (2008)106CALLT579; (2009)IILLJ165Ori
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Angul (C) Division, Angul is the appellant in this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, 'the Act'), which was filed against the order dated 8.8.2001 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Dhenkanal), Angul in the W.C. Case No. 14 of 1993 wherein a compensation of Rs. 55,973 was awarded.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:One Dhulia Naik of Kutulusingha village, P.O. Maimura within the limits of Thakurgarh Police Station in the district of Angul died by the attack of a wild elephant on 27.2.1993 at about 3.30 p.m. The certified copies of the documents, F.I.R., final report, the challan showing the carrying of the dead body to the hospital and the inquest report of U.D. Case No. 1 of 1993 do substantiate the above fatal blow to the deceased Dhulia Naik by the wild elephant at the above time. At...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(4)ARBLR256(Orissa); (2008)106CALLT169(NULL)
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator has been filed on 31.1.2007.2. The material facts of the case are:The Petitioner was awarded a contract by the Opposite Party bearing agreement No. 08/CAO/CPM/KJR/94 dated 12.12.1994 for execution of earth work in formation in Section between Km 41.00 and 58.00 in connection with construction of B.G. Line from Banspani and Daitari (Km-147) Section VI. The original value of the contract work was Rs. 1,79,87,150.00. The original value was revised and enhanced from time to time. The sixth enhancement amounting to Rs. 4,47,54,638/- was made by the Opposite Party and the work was executed and completed in all respects by the Petitioner before 31.12.2002. But since the Petitioner instead of receiving the final payment in respect of the final bill has received lesser amount and the final bill has not yet been prepared ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR731
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel.This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.1.2008 and 26.2.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack in F.A. No. 57 of 2008 by which the petitioner who is appellant in the instant case has been directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- after which the delay condonation petition and the matter of admission would be taken up. Therefore, petitioner moved another application for recalling the order which was also rejected holding that no justification was found to recall the order.2. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are quoted as under:Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed.Provided that the State Commission may entertain an Appeal after expiry of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2008)106CALLT71(NULL)
S. Panda, J.1. This appeal by the Land Acquisition Collector, Angul is directed against the award dated 7.1.1999 passed by Sri B.C. Rout, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul, in L.A. Misc. Case No. 211 of 1997 on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, 'the Act').2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:Ac.0.37 decimals of Sarad Jala dofasali-I land belonging to the claimants appertaining to Khata No. 672 in mouza Kumand was acquired for construction of 132/33 K.V. Sub-station of O.S.E.B. (now Gridco.) for which Government Declaration No. 35091/R dated 6.8.1994 was published in E.O.G. No. 986 dated the 16.8.1994. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed compensation at Rs. 35,816/-. The claimants received the compensation on protest and filed their objection for higher compensation which was referred to the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul.3. The claimants adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their claim for higher compensa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT851; 2008(I)OLR783
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ appeal arises out of an order dated 24.9.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the writ Court in W.P. (C) No. 15159 of 2006.2. The material facts of the case are that on 7.11.1998 a partition suit being Title Suit No. 609 of 1998 was filed by one Pravasani Behera, the present appellant, against the writ petitioner Sankar Das and other opposite parties. The writ petitioner and other opposite parties after being served with notice appeared before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar on or about 24.11.1998. As thereafter no steps were taken by the writ petitioner along with other opposite parties, the defendants in the suit were set ex parte on 20.08.1999. Then, the suit was decreed ex parte on 17.08.2001. After about one year and three months a Misc. Case being Misc. Case No. 588 of 2002 (first Misc. Case) was filed by the writ petitioner/ defendant No. 1 in the suit, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the e...
Tag this Judgment!