Orissa Court April 2010 Judgments

Sankar Prasad Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2010(I)OLR927

ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the opp. party management.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner-workman has challenged the order dated 6.9.2006 passed in I.D. Case No. 1 of 2002 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. In the said order, the Tribunal while directing the opp. party-management to supply a copy of the proceeding to the workman took up the petition filed by the management subsequently, where a prayer was made to try Issue No. II as preliminary issue, pending finalization of the decision on the other issues. Considering such prayer and the-nature of Issue No. II, i.e. whether domestic enquiry has been conducted fairly and properly, the Tribunal has recorded in the impugned order that if all the issues are taken up together and thereby the management is asked to adduce evidence on all these issues, then the requirement of Issue No. I would be redundant and it w...

Gangadhara Samal Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2010(I)OLR845

B.K. Nayak, J.1. This is an informant's revision against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.07.2005 passed by the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in S.T. Case No. 372/43 of 2001.2. The accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 24 and deceased-opposite party No. 25 were charged under Section 395 of the I.P.C. The prosecution case is that on 20.01.1999 at 4.00 P.M. while the petitioner-informant, who is a lawyer in Kujanga Court, returning from the Court was obstructed by accused-Purastam Mohapatra, Pramod Lenka and Pabitra Lenka, who threatened to kill and chased him. The informant took shelter in village-Dardia in his sister's house and sent his brother-in-law Ramesh Chandra Choudhury (P.W.9) and nephew-Lambodhar Choudhury (P.W.3) to his house. At 10.00 P.M., the informant returned to his house when all the accused persons came and tied him, his father and other family members and removed some building materials like bricks, sand, chips and iron rod which had been stacked in fron...

Marshal Baru. Vs. State of OrissA.

Court: Orissa

1. This Jail Criminal Appeal is directed against the order dated 23.9.1999 passed by Sri B.K.Mishra, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No. 282-47 of 1998-99 convicting the appellant under Section 302 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life.2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Basanti Baru was the sister of the informant Abraham Das (P.W.1), who married to the accused-appellant, a resident of village Tingismal, in the year 1986, and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two sons and one daughter. As the accused-appellant was working in mines, he was living with his deceased-wife and children in Bundia colony. On 27.3.1998, at about 5:00 PM, when P.W.1 got information that his sister Basanti Baru had died, he proceeded to the village Tingismal i.e. the house of his sister and found her sister lying dead. When P.W.1 made query as to how his sister died, the accused-appellant told him that his sister died of Cholera last night and afte...

Saroj Kumar MohapatrA. Vs. State of OrissA.

Court: Orissa

1. The order dated 16.8.2004 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R.No.71 of 1997 is assailed in this Criminal Revision. By the said order, the petition filed by the petitioner to discharge was rejected.2. The petitioner was working as an Inspector in O.M.V.D. On 13.8.1986 the house of the petitioner was searched on the strength of a search warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack and an inventory was made in respect of the house-hold articles and other movables found during the search. After conducting the investigation, an F.I.R. was lodged alleging that the petitioner being a public servant has acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of income to the tune of Rs.1,16,404.40 and a case under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted. Considering the materials available in the case diary, cognizance o...

A. Sanyasi Rao and anr. Vs. State of Orissa

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2010(I)OLR858

ORDERI. Mahanty, J.1. Heard Mr. J.K. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V. Narsingh learned A.G.A. for the State.2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, namely, A Sanyasi Rao and K. Narasimha Murty with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri in C.T. No. 1 of 2009, by which order the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to reject the petitioners application for bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C inter alia, on the ground that charge sheet had been filed on 8.10.2009 and therefore although application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioners on 6.10.2009, the same was no more available for consideration due to submission of charge sheet on 8.10.2009 during the pendency of the petitioners application for consideration of bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioners subm...

M/S. Sponge Udyot Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Asst.Commissioner of Sales Tax.

Court: Orissa

1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company questions the legality of the order in Annexure-2 passed by the opposite party suspending its registration certificate as a dealer.2. The petitioner-Company has its factory at Jiabahal, Kalinga, in the district of Sundargarh and has registered itself under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act (OVAT). It carries on business of manufacturing and deals with pig iron, sponge iron, steel, alloy steel, iron ore, all Ferro and metals and also carries on different business connected thereto. On 25.3.2010, a notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 32(2) of OVAT Rules, 2005 requiring the petitioner to produce evidence, record/documents on the allegation that it has knowingly furnished incomplete/incorrect information in the return furnished for the tax period/periods and failed to pay tax, interest and penalty due under the Act for the said period. The other allegation is that the petitioner conducted business in such manner that there is reasonable ...

Prasanna Kumar Behera, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2010(I)OLR769

L. Mohapatra, J.1. All the six writ applications have been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 11th April, 2005 passed in batch of Original Application bearing Nos. 275, 276 and 375 to 392 of 2004.2. Case of the applicants before the Tribunal was that they were working under Malaria Research Centre (in short, 'M.R.C.') which is a unit under Indian Council of Medical Research (in short, 'I.C.M.R.'). A decision was taken to extend 40% fitment benefit to the employees of MRC on implementation of revised scale of pay in pursuance of the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. In terms of the said decision, the pay of the applicants had been fixed. The applicants through the Registered Trade Union approached the authority by way of representation dated 15.9.2003 for payment of arrear pay on the ground of fixation of pay in terms of the aforesaid decision. It was the case of the applicants that the temporary employees were ...

Ganeswar Mishra Vs. State of Orissa and anr.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2010(I)OLR807

N. Prusty, J. (Chairman)1. The applicant has retired from his services when he was working as Civil Supplies Officer, with effect from 31.3.2002. When the applicant was engaged as Marketing Inspector under the administrative control of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, he was sent on deputation to the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation to work as Marketing Inspector. During the period of his deputation under the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The memorandum of charges dated 23.10.1986 (Annexure-2) was served on him and the applicant had filed his show cause to the memorandum of charges. Thereafter inquiring officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority and after enquiry into the matter the inquiring officer submitted the enquiry report dated 30.12.2000 (Annexure-9) to the disciplinary authority with the following recommendation;.the charges framed against the Delinquent Officer, Sri Ganeswar Mishra, Ex-I...

Mahendra Senapati and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 109(2010)CLT674

ORDERS.K. Mishra, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners & the Learned Counsel for Opp. Parties 3(a) to 3(g).2. In this batch of Writ Petition, the Petitioners assail the combined Judgment passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation in Revision Case Nos. 552/88, 553/88, 554/88, 555/88, 556/88, 557/88 & 1461/ 87. The combined order was passed on 27.10.1990. Certified copy or the order impugned was delivered, as appeared from the last page of the certified copy i.e. Annexure-1, on 20.09.2006. Thereafter, the Writ Petition has been filed on 06.02.2008. Thus, it is evident that the Writ Petitions have been filed after delay of more than 17 years.3. In Virender Ghaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Ors. 2009 (I) CLR (SC) 294, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that although there is no period of limitation provided for filing of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Ordinarily, the Writ Petition should be tiled within a reasonable time. A discretionary j...

Bagula @ Ghanashyam Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2010(I)OLR958

ORDERB.K. Patel, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.2. This revision is directed against that part of the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur in G.R. Case No. 254 of 2008 by which the petitioner, who has not been charge-sheeted, was added as an accused along with other accused persons, who have been charge-sheeted for commission of offences under Sections 395 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25(1-B) and 27 of the Arms Act.3. It appears that on the basis of report submitted by the informant, F.I.R. was registered against unknown culprits for alleged commission of offence under Section 394 of the I.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against five persons excluding the petitioner for commission of the aforesaid offences. Learned J.M.F.C, Ranpur, stating to have found that materials on record reveal involvement of the petitioner also in the commission of alleged offence, directed to issue N.B....