Orissa Court July 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.
Super Construction Vs. Asst. Commissioner, Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT851; 2008(II)OLR363; (2008)18VST387(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 29.12.1997 (Annexure-1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax (Opposite party No. 1) (hereinafter called 'ACST') as highly prejudicial, fully arbitrary or in contravention to the scheme of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as, 'the OST Act'). Even though in the order passed under Annexure-1 the ACST turned down various claims of the petitioner the learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the time of hearing of the writ petition confined his argument only to one of the grievances, i.e. the opposite parties are not justified in refusing to return the books of account taken from the petitioner in course of inspection to the place of business of the petitioner on 19.10.1995 in spite of repeated requests and for retaining the same without following procedure of law.2. The petitioner's case is that it carries on business in purchase and sale of Mosaic Chips, White Piaster Paris,...
Dr. Guru Prasad Chhotaray Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR966
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.06.1997/06.12.1997 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 40 of 1996. Initially, the matter was heard by a Division Bench of the Tribunal consisting of the Member (Technical) and Member (Judicial). The Member (Technical) assessed the liability of the railways at Rs. 2,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application, i.e., 23.08.1996, and cost of Rs. 370/-. The Member (Judicial), however, assessed the said liability at Rs. 65,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.06.1996 along with Rs. 1857/- towards application fee and Rs. 1521/- towards Advocate's fee. Since there was conflicting of opinion, the matter was referred to the third Member, namely, Member (Judicial) Ghaziabad, who agreed with the view taken by the Member (Technical).2. Thus, by majoring, the Tribunal awarded an...
Birla Tyres Workers Union Vs. Industrial Tribunal and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR321]; 2008(II)OLR379
ORDERS.C. Parija, J.1. This writ application has been filed by the Workers Union challenging the order dated 21.2.2002 passed by the. Presiding Officer/Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 31 of 2000 (State), under which the application of the petitioner praying to implead the Principal Employer, opposite party No. 3, as a necessary party to the proceeding/reference has been rejected.2. The petitioner-Union raised an industrial dispute alleging illegal retrenchment of 75 workmen by the management of M/s. Baba Enterprises, which was taken up for conciliation and the same having ended In failure, the State Government in the Labour & Employment Department, referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, for adjudication. The terms of the reference was as follows:Whether the action of the management of M/s. Baba Enterprises, a contractor of M/s. Birla Tyres in effecting retrenchment of 75 numbers of workmen with effect from the date mentioned against each...
Rama Chandra Mudra Vs. Raghunath Mudra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR529
S. Panda, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.4.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri in C.M.A, No. 90 of 2006 wherein he rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to implead him as a party to the dispute. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he purchased the property from the defendant No. 1 Gopinath Mohanty, who contested the suit. The defendant exercised his right over the suit property after the disposal of the suit. Thereafter said Gopinath Mohanty executed a registered sale deed on 14.9.2004 in favour of the petitioner. By virtue of the said sale deed, the petitioner enjoyed the suit property since the date of purchase. 3. The undisputed fact in the case is that Original Suit No. 270 of 1983-I was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.11.1988. After the dismissal of the suit-defendant Gopinath Mohanty was continuing a...
Janardan Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Brajabandhu Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR573
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in T.S. No. 213 of 1998, have filed this writ application seeking to challenge the order dated 2.11.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Puri in the said suit whereby three petitions filed by the petitioners on 20.4.2005; one under Order 22, Rule-4 read with Section 151 C.P.C., another for setting aside abatement and the third one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in taking steps for substitution, were rejected.2. From the pleadings, it is apparent that the petitioners have filed T.S. No. 213 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Puri praying, inter alia, for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit schedule properties. It appears that Defendant No. 1-Chintamani Mohapatra died on 25.9.99 after his appearance in the suit. The plaintiff-petitioners had filed a petition under Order 1, Rule-10 CPC for impleading the legal heirs of the...
Mirza Niamat Baig and anr. Vs. Sk. Abdul Sayeed and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR566
ORDER1. Heard Mr. S.C. Ghose, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. P.C. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 172. In this writ application, defendants 3 and 6 are the petitioners. They have challenged the order dated 20.5.2008 passed by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in C.S. No. 148 of 2006 whereby he accepted the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 18, Rule 1, C.P.C. and directed the defendants to adduce evidence first.3. In T.S. No. 539 of 1990 filed by the present opposite party No. 1 -plaintiff, the defendants had filed their written-statement stating regarding the previous partition of the suit property. Said suit was decreed and plaintiff's right, title and possession was declared on compromise between the parties and in the present suit, the present opposite party No. 1 prayed for declaring the aforesaid decree as null and void as it had been obtained by practicing fraud and he had not put his signature...
Smt. Lala Sukanti Ray @ Sukanti Kumari Ray Vs. Lala Ananta Kumar Ray a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR564
I. Mahanty, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner Smt. Lala Sukanti Ray has sought to challenge the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior-Division) First Court, Cuttack in dismissing her application for amendment of the written statement and also rejecting the application of the present petitioner for tagging the two suits C.S. No. 379 of 2002 along with C.S. No. 433 of 2005 or alternatively seeking stay of further proceeding in C.S. No. 379 of 2002 till disposal of C.S. No. 433 of 2005.2. The facts of the present case indicates that the present Opp.Party No. 1, as plaintiff, instituted C.S. No. 379 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court, Cuttack impleading the other opposite parties as well as the present petitioner (Defendant No. 5) claiming partition of 'B' schedule property situated at Jagatsinghpur. In the said suit, the plaintiff also claimed 50% share in the 'A' schedule property situated at Cuttack. The petitioner-defendant No. 5 claims that upon is...
Fakirmohan Das and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Government of Orissa and ors. Et ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR530
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. All the aforesaid cases were heard analogously on consent of the parties and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Secretaries working under different Gram Panchayats in the State of Orissa and in some cases Sarpanches of the Grama Panchayats together with the Secretaries have filed the writ petitions challenging amendment of Sections 122 and 123 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (in short, 'the Act') and the orders dated 18.10.2004 and the consequential order thereof dated 01.11.2004 passed respectively by the Government in Panchayati Raj Department and the concerned Panchayat Officers/the Block Development Officers.3. In nut shell, the Secretaries and also the Sarpanches of some of the Grama Panchayats have questioned the authority of the Government in making amendment of Sections 122 of 123 of the Act contrary to the spirit of self governance proclaimed by the Constitution in Article 243G by curtailing independence of the Grama Panchayats and to get it con...
Bhabagrahi Roul After His Death His L.Rs. Nabakishore Roul and ors. Vs ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: 106(2008)CLT744
Sanju Panda, J.1. Since common questions of law facts arise in both these two Writ Petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.In both the Writ Petition, challenge has been made by the Petitioners to the orders vide Annexures 6, 7 and 8 passed by Opposite Parties 1 to 3 in a proceeding under Sections 22 and 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts of the case are as follows:The Petitioners' ancestor Kulamani Roul was the recorded tenant as per 1930 settlement, vide Annexure-1. Said Kulamani Roul while in possession executed a nominal deed in respect of the case land in favour of Nabei Mallik, the father of Opposite Party No. 4, without delivering the possession. The possession has been continuing with Kulamani Roul. However, to avoid future complication, it was agreed between the parties to execute a registered sale deed. Accordingly, Nabei Mallik executed two sale deeds i.e. one on 20th April, 1971 ...
Tuna Prusty Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(II)OLR714
1. Appellant Tuna Prusty and his father Kunja Bihari Prusty faced the trial in S.T. Case No. 355(1) of 2000-2001 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Deogarh on the allegations that on 25.04.2000 at about 1.00 P.M., they shared the common intention to kill Benudhar Sahu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). In course of trial, because of absence of sufficient evidence to connect accused Kunja Bihari Prusty with the crime, learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted him of the charge. At the same time on assessment of evidence on record, he found that prosecution has proved charge of murder against the accused-appellant Tuna Prusty. Accordingly, he convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. In this appeal, the appellant challenges that order of conviction pronounced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 17.07.2001.2. Prosecution case is that accused Kunja Bihari Prusty and the deceased are co-brothers-in-law. Accused Tuna Prusty is so...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »