Orissa Court July 2008 Judgments
State of Orissa Vs. Athiti Bihar Restaurant
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT669; (2009)25VST87(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. The question of law as has been referred to by the Learned Sales Tax Tribunal to this Court for opinion is as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the dominant object of the transactions effected by the assessee is sale, Tribunal is correct in law to allow benefit of exemption available Under Section 6(2) of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 in respect of sales of food stuffs to the Customers for consumption inside the hotel on the ground that no tax has been collected on such sales?2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the dealer in the present case is an unregistered dealer and during the relevant period he was running a restaurant. The assessing officer and both the first and second Appellate authorities held that the dominant object of the transactions effected inside the restaurant run by the dealer was 'sale'. Learned Tribunal held that the dealer being all unregistered dealer has not collected any ta...
Tag this Judgment!The Stone Crusher Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT668
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the impugned notification (Annexure-2) issued by the State Government putting certain conditions for installation of stone crusher.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that Petitioner's association claims Societies itself registered under the Registration Act and its members are running the business of stone crusher. The association has challenged the Government Order Dated 13.5.1998 (Annexure-2) Putting the following the conditions for installation of stone crusher.(1) All stone crusher units are to conform to the pollution Control Measures and emission standards notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forest from time to time among with the standards Under Section 7 of the said Act.(2) No stone crusher shall be allowed within one kilometer from a town or village boundary.(3) No stone crusher should be located within half kilometer from the National and State Highways.(4) Distance between two...
Tag this Judgment!Saman Alias Somanath Rout Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ418
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 30-6-1989 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore convicting the appellant under Section 326, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years in S.T. Nos. 15/23 of 1989.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24-5-1988 during morning hour the accused went to the paddy field of the deceased to plough the land as a labourer. At about 8.00 a.m. the deceased went to his paddy field, where the accused was ploughing, with perched rice and water for his tiffin. On reaching the spot, the deceased ploughed the land and the accused spread manure with the help of a spade. All on a sudden, the accused/appellant inflicted a blow by means of the spade M.O.-II on the head of the deceased. As a consequence, the deceased fell down facing downward. The nearby witnesses carried the deceased to his house in an unconscious state. Soon he was taken to Balasore District Headquarters Hospital for his tre...
Tag this Judgment!Nilamani Pradhan and ors. Vs. Narottam Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Ori185
ORDERPradip Mohanty, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 1-7-2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Athamallik rejecting an application (LA. No. 6 of 2005) filed by the judgment-debtor-petitioners under Sections 47 and 151 of the C.P.C. with a prayer not to proceed with the execution proceeding as the decree out of which it arose was a void one.2. Case of the petitioners, as narrated in the impugned order, is that original defendant No. 1 - Bimbadhar Pradhan died on 8-7-1987 during pendency of the final decree proceeding. No attempt whatsoever was made by the decree-holder-opposite party to substitute the legal heirs of said defendant No. 1. As such, final decree was passed against a dead man. According to law, a decree passed against a dead man is a nullity.3. Further, during pendency of the final decree proceeding, an Amin Commissioner was deputed to the suit land who allotted the land and ignored the claim of the L.Rs. of defendant No. 1. That Ami...
Tag this Judgment!Barbati Gas Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR175]; (2009)ILLJ349Ori
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order dated August 31, 1999 passed by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner on behalf of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Annexure-2 by which he has recalled his earlier speaking order communicated vide letter dated June 9, 1999.2. Case of the petitioner is that on July 31, 1995 the opposite party issued a notice against the petitioner for the purpose of inquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Since the inquiry could not be concluded within two years, the case was transferred to the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, who, after inquiry and verification of documents, passed the speaking order on August 1, 1998, which was ratified by the Regional Provident Commissioner. On June 9, 1999, said speaking order was communicated to the petitioner. On August 31, 1999, the petitioner received a letter from the Asstt. Provident Fund Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Labanya Kumar Mahanta Vs. Collector and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR495
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.8.2000 passed by the District Collector, Keonjhar refusing to issue the distress certificate.2. The order impugned has been passed by the District Collector only on the basis of the report of the Tahasildar and without giving any opportunity to the present petitioner to rebut the same. Petitioner's father was a Asst. Teacher in Sananeuli Primary School under the D.I. of Schools, Champua. He expired on 27.6.1999 while in service. The Tahasildar submitted a report to the District Collector that the petitioner has some agricultural land and the annual income from the said land is Rs. 9000/- and the family had one pucca house having four rooms. There is nothing on record to show as to whether the agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 9000/- was of the petitioner alone or for the other family members also and as to whether the pucca house had been constructed by his father or by his forefather and in cas...
Tag this Judgment!Singhal Converter (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT678; (2008)18VST165(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. In this Writ Petition the Petitioner challenges receipt dated 27.11.1998 (Annexure-4) issued by the Sales Tax Officer (Vigilance), Sambalpur [hereinafter referred to as the 'STO(V)'] by which collection of tax and penalty has been made from the Petitioner treating said receipt as order of assessment of tax and penalty, and also the Order Dated 20.10.2000 (Annexure-6) passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Northern Zone, Orissa, Sambalpur (hereinafter called as the 'revisional authority') in Revision Case No. SA-1027/98-99; by which he allowed adjustment of the tax collected by the aforesaid receipt in the quarterly return of the Petitioner but refused to interfere with imposition of penalty.2. Petitioner's case in brief is that it is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter called, the 'OST Act') within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur-I Circle, Sambalpur and is engaged in d...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Prasad Sahu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT672; 2008(II)OLR626; (2009)19VST417(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. In this tax revision petition though the petitioner has raised several questions, at the time of hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to only three questions, which are modified below:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in sustaining the addition of 10% of the purchased quantity of mohua flower disclosed by the petitioner and supported by the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Excise towards driage and wastage to determine the purchase turnover of mohua flower which is liable to tax on turnover of purchase for the purpose of levy of tax?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in absence of any adverse material on record the turnover of the dealer can be enhanced on mere suspicion and conjecture?(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has committed error of law in deciding an issue which was neither taken in the grounds ...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Kar Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR521
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. The dispute in this Writ Petition is with regard to the alleged illegalities and irregularities said to have been committed in course of selection of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks in Nuapada district so far as B.Ed candidates were concerned.2. The petitioner in response to an advertisement, it is submitted, had applied for being engaged as a Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak in Nuapada district. He was more meritorious than all other candidates and after facing rigorous recruitment tests was selected. A draft selection list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner had been reflected but for reasons best known to the selection committee he was not engaged.3. Being aggrieved by that he had preferred WPC No. 393 of 2005 challenging the illegal action of the opposite party-authorities. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 31.1.2005 with observation that if the petitioner would file a representation before the Collector, Nuapada who was the Chairman of the select...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Chandra Mallik and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR578
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard Mr. J.R. Dash, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Caveator-opp.party as well as learned Counsel for the State.2. In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.6.2004 passed in G.R. Case No. 1182 of 2003 by which the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur took cognizance of the offence under Section 188 I.P.C. against the petitioners.3. Mr. Dash, learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that in view of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 188 I.P.C.4. The relevant portion of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is quoted hereunder:195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence - (1) No Court shall take cognizance--(a) (i) (to (iii) and (b) (i) to (iii) xxx xxxExcept on the compla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »