Orissa Court May 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT245; (2008)15VST228(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition calls in question, the legality of the order dated June 28, 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, (LTU) Cuttack-II Range, Cuttack (hereinafter called the 'the ACST') under Section 30 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter called 'the OVAT Act') whereby claim of the petitioner that furnace oil qualifies to be an 'input' for the purpose of availing input tax credit was rejected. Consequently, a tax demand to the tune of Rs. 32,26,909 was raised by that order.The facts which give rise to the present writ petition are set out below.2. The petitioner in the present case is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 3rd Floor, Maker Chambers-IV, 222, Nariman point, Mumbai-400 021 and factory at Laxmi-nagar, Baulpur, Dhenkanal. It is a dealer registered under the OVAT Act. It manufactures polyester staple fibres (hereinafter referred to as, 'the PSF') through Oris...
Dharmesh Nayak Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)106CALLT8(NULL)
B.P. Das, J.1. The Petitioner, who is an elected Corporator of Ward No. II of Cuttack Municipal Corporation, has in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the final notification dated 18.2.2008 issued by the State Government in Housing and Urban Development Department, vide Annexure-11, in purported exercise of the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 ( shortly called 'the Act') read with Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Orissa Municipal Corporation (Division of City into Wards, Reservation of Seats and Conduct of Election) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') by which the State Govt. has divided the area of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (hereinafter 'CMC') into 54 wards and made reservation of seats under Section 7 of the Act.2. The Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid final notification in Annexure-11 on the ground that (i) the notification has not been made in accordance wit...
Smt. Sabitri Behera and ors. Vs. Secretary, Board of Secondary Educati ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)106CALLT51(NULL)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the Judgment dated 01.09.1995 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 494/1994 and praying for higher compensation.2. The facts in nut shell are that on 24.04.1989 at 4.00 P.M. while the deceased Chaitanya was coming on a Scooter, a truck bearing registration No. ORU-8938 being driven in rash and negligent manner hit the scooter near Gandhi Chhak. As a result of such accident, the deceased fell down from the scooter and the offending truck ran over him. Thereafter, he was carried to the hospital where he was declared dead. Before the Tribunal, the claim petition was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.0 lakhs on the ground that the deceased was contributing. Rs. 1,500/- per month to his family members. Respondent No. 1, the owner of the vehicle in question appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement denying the allegation in toto.3. According to him, ...
Krishna Chandra Pati Vs. Hemanta Kumar Pati and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT502
A.K. Parichha, J.1. Defendant No. 4 is in appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in Title Suit No. 65 of 1995.2. The present Respondent No. 1 as Plaintiff filed that suit for partition of the properties of his father-Balaram Pati (Respondent No. 2) and for allotment of his share in the same. The case of the Plaintiff in brief was that his grand father-Harihar Pati being the only son inherited the coparcenary ancestral property from his father-Nandu Pati. Harihar died in the year 1973 leaving behind two sons, namely, Balaram (Defendant No. 1) and Krishna (Defendant No. 4) and four daughters, namely, Subhadra, Bilashini (D-18), Laxmi (D-19) and Rebati (D-20). During the life time of Harihar, there was an amicable partition of the coparcenary property in the year 1971 wherein Harihar for himself and widowed daughter-Subhadra kept some properties and divided the rest of the coparcenary properties between the two sons-Balarma and Kri...
Bansidhar Murudi and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT515
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is a Plaintiffs' Second Appeal against the composite Judgment and decree passed by the Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in Title Appeal No. 3/10 of 1995/94 and Title Appeal No. 5/17 of 1996/942. The present Appellants, as Plaintiffs, filed Title Suit No. 255 of 1989 in the Court the Munsif, Puri for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant-Respondents from interfering with their possession over the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint. The case of the Plaintiffs, in substance, was that the suit land was lying fallow and the Plaintiffs occupied the same 45 years back, reclaimed the land for the purpose of agriculture and horticulture, planted trees, constructed temple and thatched house, dug a pond and openly enjoyed the property without any hindrance for a period of more than 30 years and acquired title over the same by adverse possession against the State. It was pleaded that the State Government never interf...
Manguram Agarwal @ Agarwalla (Dead) and ors. Vs. Sri Pyaralal (Dead) a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR269
Sanju Panda, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 19.02.1983 and decree dated 26.02.1983 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur in T.S. No. 61 of 1978.2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows;Plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased the suit land on 20th April, 1957 by a registered sale deed and constructed a house thereon. The defendant was a tenant of the same on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-and the tenancy was completed according to the English calendar. As the defendant was a chronic defaulter and did not pay the rent since February, 1974 in spite of repeated demand, plaintiff filed the suit for eviction from Schedule-A property and prayed for delivery of possession of the same to him through Court on the allegation that defendant damaged the suit house as a result of which the value of the house was diminished and plaintiff wanted the suit house for his own use. As the defendant did not vacate the suit house, he issued a notice on 6.6.1975...
Kedarnath Biswal and ors. Vs. Budhanath Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT595
A.K. Parichha, J.1. Appellants along with Respondent No. 8 instituted Title Suit No. 92 of 1996 in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri for declaration of title over the suit schedule land, confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 (present Respondent No. 1) impleading the other Respondents as proforma Defendants. Plaintiffs specifically pleaded that they are the owner in possession of the suit land, but the Defendant No. 1, who has no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit land is threatening to throw out the Plaintiffs from the suit land and occupy the same. Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 were set ex parte, but Defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement, pleading, inter alia that the suit property has not been properly valued and that the Trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Defendant No. 1 also pleaded that he purchased part of...
State of Orissa Vs. Dola Bihari Nanda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR620
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 29 of 2000 answering a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Ac. 15.51 decimals of land under Khata No. 11 of village-Rengta under Naikul P.S. belonging to the claimant-respondent was acquired for the purpose of Rengali Dam Project under Section 4(1) notification dated 6.1.1975. After enquiry under Section 11 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a compensation of Rs. 81,991/- for the acquired land, trees and house standing on those lands. The claimant-respondent received that amount under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge.3. To justify the claim of higher compensation, the claimant examined himself and another wit...
Padmashree Krutarth Acharya Institute of Engineering and Technology Vs ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Ori)516; [2009]309ITR13(Orissa)
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated January 25, 2008, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhubaneswar. By the said order, the Chief Commissioner has rejected the petitioner's application for grant of approval for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the said application was filed beyond time.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the said application was filed on June 1,2006, consideration has been made on the basis of the proviso added to Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act.3. According to the Chief Commissioner, the proviso does not give any room for him to condone the delay and, as such, the application was not considered and rejected on the ground that it was filed after a particular time.4. This Court is of the opinion that since the application for grant of approval for exemption which has been filed by an educational institution though belatedly filed should h...
General Manager, Electrical, Rengali Hydro Electric Project and ors. V ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT340
M.M. Das, J.1. Opposite Parties 1 to 90 (workmen) represented by one Ramesh Chandra Satpathy, President, Rengali Power Project Workers Union filed Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No. 1 of 2001 under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, against the Writ Petitioners representing the Management, praying for reinstatement of all the ninety workers in their respective jobs by way of regular service and for such other appropriate relief. It was the case of the workmen before the Labour Court that they were working as N.M.R. workers since fifteen years as Welders, Fitters, Riggers, Helpers etc. in different capacities and their services were vested with the Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. (in short, 'the OHPC Ltd.') with effect from 1.4.1996 when the said Corporation was created under Orissa Power Sector Reforms Act, 1995. The said corporation in its Rengali Hydro Electrical Project was a power generating station gener...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »