Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31804 of 2011 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------M/s. Selvel Advertising Private Ltd., represented through its Attorney Mr. Tarak Majumdar, aged about 42 years, S/o. Late Gouranga Majumdar, E/M-34, Basanti Colony, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh and others Petitioners State of Orissa and others Opp. Parties For Petitioners Mr.Jayant Das, Senior Advocate M/s. Goutam Mukherji, P.Mukherji, A.C.Panda, S.Mishra, S.Das & S.D.Ray -Versus- : For Opp. Parties : M/s Rama Kanta Mohapatra, P.K. Nayak, H.B. Dash, G.Mohapatra (For O.P. Nos. 2 &3) ---------- P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI V.GOPALA GOWDA AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.N.MAHAPATRA Date of Judgment:12. 12.2012 B.N. Mahapatra, J.This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the Rourkela Municipality Regulations of tax on advertisement, 2010 made on 4th January, 2011 (Annexure-1) by the Rourkela Municipality...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT555; 2005(II)OLR779
M.M. Das, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against an order dated 1.7.2005 of the Learned Single Judge passed in O.J.C. No. 17341 of 2001.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 164 of 1979 against the appellant to set aside a sale deed, which was executed and registered by one Gajendra Acharya in favour of the appellant with respect to the 'A' Schedule property of the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. The grounds taken in the plaint were that the sale deed was obtained by playing fraud and coercing the vendor. The appellant's case was that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 realizing that the suit would be dismissed got a compromise petition filed in the suit, which according to the appellant was obtained by the respondent No. 1 by playing fraud on the appellant. However, on the Court causing an enquiry under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, held that the compromise was lawful and the same was made a part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK WRIT PETITION (C) Nos. 15519/2010, 5737/2010, 18577/2011, 5186/2012, 5187/2012, 1087/2008, 3562/2008, 3563/2008, 3775/2009, 3903/2009, 1963/2012, 5764/2007, 6982/2012, 7/2008, 13978/2008, 3515/2008, 579/2010 and 5101/2012. 7975/2011, 2959/2008, 3132/2010, 3010/2012, In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India TATA STEEL LTD ---------(WP(C) 15519/2010) ESSAR STEEL ORISSA (WP(C) 5737/2010) M/s. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 7975/2011) M/s. JAYSHREE CHEMICALS LTD. (WP(C) 18577/2011) M/s. GMR KAMALANGA (WP(C) 5186 & 5187/2012) INDIAN METALS AND FERRO LTD (WP(C) 1087/2008) HINDALCO INDUSTRIES (WP(C) 2959/2008) RUNGTA MINES LTD (WP(C) 3562/2008) MANGILLALL RUNGTA (WP(C) 3563/2008) NAGAR EXPORT PVT, LTD (WP(C) 3775 & 3903/2009) MIKAGE STONE DEVELOP (WP(C) 3132/2010) M/S. BHARATI TELEMEDI (WP(C) 1963/2012) MAHASWARI COAL (WP(C) 5764/2007) M/S. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 6982/2012 IFGL REFRACTORIES (WP(C) 7/2008) M/S ADANI ENERPRISE (WP(C) 3010/2012) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK WRIT PETITION (C) Nos. 15519/2010, 5737/2010, 18577/2011, 5186/2012, 5187/2012, 1087/2008, 3562/2008, 3563/2008, 3775/2009, 3903/2009, 1963/2012, 5764/2007, 6982/2012, 7/2008, 13978/2008, 3515/2008, 579/2010 and 5101/2012. 7975/2011, 2959/2008, 3132/2010, 3010/2012, In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India TATA STEEL LTD ---------(WP(C) 15519/2010) ESSAR STEEL ORISSA (WP(C) 5737/2010) M/s. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 7975/2011) M/s. JAYSHREE CHEMICALS LTD. (WP(C) 18577/2011) M/s. GMR KAMALANGA (WP(C) 5186 & 5187/2012) INDIAN METALS AND FERRO LTD (WP(C) 1087/2008) HINDALCO INDUSTRIES (WP(C) 2959/2008) RUNGTA MINES LTD (WP(C) 3562/2008) MANGILLALL RUNGTA (WP(C) 3563/2008) NAGAR EXPORT PVT, LTD (WP(C) 3775 & 3903/2009) MIKAGE STONE DEVELOP (WP(C) 3132/2010) M/S. BHARATI TELEMEDI (WP(C) 1963/2012) MAHASWARI COAL (WP(C) 5764/2007) M/S. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 6982/2012 IFGL REFRACTORIES (WP(C) 7/2008) M/S ADANI ENERPRISE (WP(C) 3010/2012) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK WRIT PETITION (C) Nos. 15519/2010, 5737/2010, 18577/2011, 5186/2012, 5187/2012, 1087/2008, 3562/2008, 3563/2008, 3775/2009, 3903/2009, 1963/2012, 5764/2007, 6982/2012, 7/2008, 13978/2008, 3515/2008, 579/2010 and 5101/2012. 7975/2011, 2959/2008, 3132/2010, 3010/2012, In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India TATA STEEL LTD ---------(WP(C) 15519/2010) ESSAR STEEL ORISSA (WP(C) 5737/2010) M/s. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 7975/2011) M/s. JAYSHREE CHEMICALS LTD. (WP(C) 18577/2011) M/s. GMR KAMALANGA (WP(C) 5186 & 5187/2012) INDIAN METALS AND FERRO LTD (WP(C) 1087/2008) HINDALCO INDUSTRIES (WP(C) 2959/2008) RUNGTA MINES LTD (WP(C) 3562/2008) MANGILLALL RUNGTA (WP(C) 3563/2008) NAGAR EXPORT PVT, LTD (WP(C) 3775 & 3903/2009) MIKAGE STONE DEVELOP (WP(C) 3132/2010) M/S. BHARATI TELEMEDI (WP(C) 1963/2012) MAHASWARI COAL (WP(C) 5764/2007) M/S. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 6982/2012 IFGL REFRACTORIES (WP(C) 7/2008) M/S ADANI ENERPRISE (WP(C) 3010/2012) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK WRIT PETITION (C) Nos. 15519/2010, 5737/2010, 18577/2011, 5186/2012, 5187/2012, 1087/2008, 3562/2008, 3563/2008, 3775/2009, 3903/2009, 1963/2012, 5764/2007, 6982/2012, 7/2008, 13978/2008, 3515/2008, 579/2010 and 5101/2012. 7975/2011, 2959/2008, 3132/2010, 3010/2012, In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India TATA STEEL LTD ---------(WP(C) 15519/2010) ESSAR STEEL ORISSA (WP(C) 5737/2010) M/s. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 7975/2011) M/s. JAYSHREE CHEMICALS LTD. (WP(C) 18577/2011) M/s. GMR KAMALANGA (WP(C) 5186 & 5187/2012) INDIAN METALS AND FERRO LTD (WP(C) 1087/2008) HINDALCO INDUSTRIES (WP(C) 2959/2008) RUNGTA MINES LTD (WP(C) 3562/2008) MANGILLALL RUNGTA (WP(C) 3563/2008) NAGAR EXPORT PVT, LTD (WP(C) 3775 & 3903/2009) MIKAGE STONE DEVELOP (WP(C) 3132/2010) M/S. BHARATI TELEMEDI (WP(C) 1963/2012) MAHASWARI COAL (WP(C) 5764/2007) M/S. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 6982/2012 IFGL REFRACTORIES (WP(C) 7/2008) M/S ADANI ENERPRISE (WP(C) 3010/2012) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK WRIT PETITION (C) Nos. 15519/2010, 5737/2010, 18577/2011, 5186/2012, 5187/2012, 1087/2008, 3562/2008, 3563/2008, 3775/2009, 3903/2009, 1963/2012, 5764/2007, 6982/2012, 7/2008, 13978/2008, 3515/2008, 579/2010 and 5101/2012. 7975/2011, 2959/2008, 3132/2010, 3010/2012, In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India TATA STEEL LTD ---------(WP(C) 15519/2010) ESSAR STEEL ORISSA (WP(C) 5737/2010) M/s. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 7975/2011) M/s. JAYSHREE CHEMICALS LTD. (WP(C) 18577/2011) M/s. GMR KAMALANGA (WP(C) 5186 & 5187/2012) INDIAN METALS AND FERRO LTD (WP(C) 1087/2008) HINDALCO INDUSTRIES (WP(C) 2959/2008) RUNGTA MINES LTD (WP(C) 3562/2008) MANGILLALL RUNGTA (WP(C) 3563/2008) NAGAR EXPORT PVT, LTD (WP(C) 3775 & 3903/2009) MIKAGE STONE DEVELOP (WP(C) 3132/2010) M/S. BHARATI TELEMEDI (WP(C) 1963/2012) MAHASWARI COAL (WP(C) 5764/2007) M/S. ACC LTD. (WP(C) 6982/2012 IFGL REFRACTORIES (WP(C) 7/2008) M/S ADANI ENERPRISE (WP(C) 3010/2012) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder urging various facts and legal grounds.2. Brief facts in nutshell are stated as under: The petitioner in each of the writ petitions is accused of offence punishable under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Originally each one of the petitioners case was pending either in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance at Bhubaneswar or Cuttack or other places in the State. After establishment of the Special Courts pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government establishing Special Courts, the case of the petitioners were transferred to the respective Special Judge of the Special Courts established under the Orissa Special Courts Act.3. The Orissa Special Courts Act has been passed by the Orissa Legislative Assembly and the same has been assented to by the President of India on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2009Ori46; 2008(II)OLR725:AIR2009Orissa46
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment of August 6, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 386 of 2007 is assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal. In the FAO an order of September 9, 2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, FTC-Ill, Bhubaneswar in Interim Application No. 12 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 498 of 2004 appointing a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'CPC) was assailed.2. The question of maintainability of the LPA against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court was raised in course of hearing of the LPA. It was pointed out at the Bar that there had been two sets of directly conflicting judgments of Division Benches of this Court, inasmuch as in the case of V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patl and Anr. 2006 (II) OLR 349, a Division Bench had taken the view that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in view of amendment of Section 100-A CPC against the judgment/order of a learned Single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2007Ori120; 104(2007)CLT310
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Four writ petitions have been filed challenging constitutional validity of the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Ordinance, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Ordinance'). During the course of hearing of the matter before the Court, the said Ordinance was replaced by an Act and came to be known as Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). Out of the four writ petitions, in W.P. (C) No. 4073 of 2007 Article 15(5) of the Constitution which has come by way of 93rd Amendment to the Constitution has also been challenged. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however later on gave up the said challenge.2. But. in all these writ petitions the constitutional validity of the said Ordinance as replaced by the said Act was challenged.3. First of these four writ petitions was registered as W.P. (C) No. 2446 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!