Orissa Court July 2010 Judgments

M/S. Srg Iron and Steel (P) Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, ...

Court: Orissa

1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 11.09.2009 (Annexure-1) passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Unified Check Gate, Girisola, Ganjam, opposite party No.2 (here-in-after mentioned as "S.T.O.") in which the S.T.O. levied Rs.4,51,693/- towards tax, surcharge and penalty under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short "O.S.T. Act") and Rs.55,536/- towards tax and penalty under the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (for short "O.E.T. Act") as well as order dated 08.10.2003 (Annexure-3) passed in PU 224/2003-04 by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone, Berhampur (for short "Addl. Commissioner") declining to interfere with the order of the S.T.O.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office in the district of Singhbhum (East) of Jharkhand State. It carries its business of manufacturi...

Pradeep Kumar Sahoo and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court: Orissa

1. In this batch of writ applications, the petitioners as well as private opposite parties were serving together as "Engineers", in the earstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board (O.S.E.B.). With the enactment of Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 and on creation of the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (in short "GRIDCO"), the services of the petitioners as well as the private opposite parties were transferred to the cadre of GRIDCO w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Subsequently, on creation of various electricity distribution companies, the petitioners as well as the private opposite parties were "absorbed" by Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited in short "CESCO") w.e.f. 26.11.1998 now known as Central Electricity Supply Utility (in short "CESU").2. CESCO issued a circular on 21.2.2000 indicating its decision to form a "new cadre", which would be called as the "Business Cadre" and subsequently re-designated it as "Revenue Improvement Cadre" and invited applications from the existing employ...

Mobashar Javed Akbar and ors. Vs. Asian Age (Utkal) Publication (P).

Court: Orissa

1. The petitioners herein, namely, IV|obashar Javed Akbar and others have sought to challenge an order dated 28.1.2002 taking cognizance of offence under Section 420, IPC in |.C.C.No.41\of 2000 pending before the court of the S.D.J.l\/I., dated 28.1.2002 passed by the learned S.D..J.l\/I., Bhubaneswar in l.C.C.No.41 of 2000, which is impugned herein.In the light of the facts of the present case noted herein above as well as the interpretation made by the Hon'bIe t Supreme Court on Section 415,lPC in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. (supra) it is clear that the acts alleged against the accusedpetitioners do not come under either by the two classes of acts covered under Section 415,lPC. On a perusal of the complaint petition itself as well as the claim made in the Civil Suit, it would be clear that the allegation is essentially for breach of contract alone.Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and the facts of the present case, l am of the considered view that the complainant has...

M/S. Epari Sadasiv and Sons. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax and o ...

Court: Orissa

1. He petitioner, who is a registered dealer, has filed this writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Intelligence Range, Cuttack-opposite party no.2, in conducting tax audit and issuance of Audit Visit Report, especially when the said authority- opposite party no.2 has not been delegated with the power by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, to exercise and discharge the power and duties in relation to Rule 41 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (OVAT Rules for short), under notification dated 1.12.2005, as per Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner also assails the submission of the Audit Visit Report in Form E-27 for the purpose of making audit assessment under the provisions of Orissa Value Added Act, 2004 (OVAT Act for short), when the same was required to be submitted in Form VAT-303.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Commissioner for Sales Tax, Orissa, having issued notific...

Bijay Kumar Sahoo. Vs. Central Electricity Supply.

Court: Orissa

1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2000 passed by the learned Single Jude in O.J.C. No. 16363 of 1998 affirming the award passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on 19.8.1998 in I.D. Case No. 85 of 1994 urging various legal grounds.The brief facts for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions of the case and to find out as to whether there is any substantial question of law involved in this case for reconsideration of the matter and the interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the award passed by the Labour Court respectively are that the appellant herein was a workman. On the recommendation of his name by the Principal of I.T.I., Puri, to undergo apprenticeship training and on being selected he took training from 21.11.1985 to 21.11.1986 with the respondent's Corporation (hereinafter called "Corporation") and received monthly stipend. 2. After completion of the apprenticeship trai...

Vidhi Minerals and Allied Pvt. Ltd and anr. Vs. Paradip Port Trust Rep ...

Court: Orissa

1. The appellant in this appeal has challenged the order dated 3.5.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Arbitration Petition No. 61 of 2010. The appellant, which is a private limited company, being represented by its Managing Director filed an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with a prayer to restrain the opp. party no. 2, who is respondent no. 2 in this appeal and its agents/servants/representatives from lifting the stock materials worth around 8000 M.T. lying over plot no. M-1 at Paradip Port and to direct the Paradip Port Trust not to grant any permission to the respondent no. 1 for lifting the stock from the said plot nor to export the same without leave of the Court or till initiation of the arbitration proceeding. It was further prayed for a direction to the respondent no. 2 not to enter into three party contract pertaining to the stock lying over plot No. M-1 till the Arbitrator is a...

State of Orissa and ors. Vs. NabIn Kumar BeurA.

Court: Orissa

1. The present letters patent appeal has been filed by the State of Orissa, represented by the Secretary, School and Mass Education Department, the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa and the Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur Circle seeking to challenge the judgment dated 15.5.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing O.J.C. No.8377 of 1998 with a direction to the State Government to create the post held by the petitioner and approve his appointment and release salary component within a period of six months from the date of communication of that order.2. Learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submitted that the writ petitioner (present respondent) had earlier filed O.J.C. No.7213 of 1997 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide the order dated 14.7.1997 with the following directions :" If the matter is pending as asserted by petitioner, let the Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur Circle (Opp. Party No.3) deal with the matter and disp...

Bansidhar Pradhan. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Mining.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: AIR2011Ori56

1. A consent memo has been filed in favour of Mr. B. Routray, learned senior counsel to appear on behalf of the petitioner in Court today. The same be kept on record. Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel has entered as a Caveator on behalf of the contesting opp. Parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 20.7.2010 passed in I.A. No. 84 of 2010 arising out of C.S. No. 278 of 2010 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul. The opp. party no. 1 - institution is a technical educational institution, which has been formed by virtue of registered deed of trust of 1989. Due to dissension amongst the parties, earlier C.S. No. 69 of 2002 was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Angul, which was ultimately disposed of by judgment dated 21.3.2006. The learned Civil Judge in the said suit refused to grant permanent injunction against the defendants therein and declared that there were only three new trustees, namely, Bansidhar Pradhan, the pe...

Jitendra JhA. Vs. State of OrissA.

Court: Orissa

1. The petitioner-detenu under the National Security Act, 1980 questions the correctness of the order of detention dated 9.3.2010 passed by the District Magistrate,Keonjhar- opposite party no.1 and the order of approval of the said order of detention by the State Government in exercise of power under sub-section (4) of the National Security Act, 1980 produced at Annexures-1 and 7 respectively urging various facts and legal contentions and prays for quashing the same.2. Necessary brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions with a view to find out if the petitioner is entitled for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of detention and order of approval passed by the State Government directing the detaining authority to set him at liberty.3. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen and is doing transport business and is also supplying labourers for loading and unloading of mineral ore at the railway siding at Barbil. He is also an in...

U.B.Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Orissa

1. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the reference made by the opp. party no. 1 under Clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2) (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with regard to the dispute between the petitioner and the opp. party no. 3 - workman vide order dated 12.3.1999. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its corporate office at Pune in Maharashtra and a site office at Rourkela in the district of Sundergarh (Orissa). The petitioner company was engaged in work of expansion and modernization of Rourkela Steel Plant and the opp. party no. 3 - workman was engaged by the petitioner-company as a Helper. On completion of the work, the opp. party no. 3 - workman and other workers were retrenched on 25.3.1995 on payment of all their dues. However, the opp. party no. 3 - workman raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer (State) opp. pa...