Court : Orissa
Reported in : 97(2004)CLT782
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner has been working as a Lecturer in English in Tangi Mahavidyalaya since 1991. The Principal of the said Mahavidyalaya Sri Saroj Kumar Tripathy (hereinafter referred to as 'the Principal') issued a letter dated 26.12.2000 to the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner has not been staying in the college for the minimum period of 6 hours a day and she has failed to take classes when Professor B. Sarangi went on leave and that there have been complaints from some students that the petitioner has been misbehaving with them in the class. In the said letter dated 26.12.2000, the Principal also stated that the petitioner has not secured the requisite percentage of marks in the M. A. Examination and the petitioner has not tried to improve her marks and that the workload of the English Department does not permit a second lecturer and unless she mends her ways and functions as per the rules, necessary action as deemed fit would be initiated against h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 96(2003)CLT465
A. K. Patnaik, J.1. This writ petition was originally filed by late Mandakini Senapati. She died during the pendency of the writ petition and in her place, her husband-Somanath Senapati has been substituted as the petitioner.2. The facts briefly are that the State of Orissa by a policy decision in the year 1980-81 declared hotel as an 'Industry'. Late Mandakini Senapati applied in the year 1985 for allotment of a land in Bhubaneswar town for setting up a hotel named 'Hotel Ashirbad'. The aforesaid hotel project was provisionally registered with the General Manager, District Industries Centre (for short, 'the D.I.C.') on 11.12.1985. The D.I.C. recommended the aforesaid hotel project to the Director of Industries, Orissa by letter dated 18.1.1986. The proposal, however, was dropped at the level of the Director of Industries as there was a ban imposed by the Government on hotel projects. After the ban was lifted, the proposal was recommended by the Director of Industries, Orissa by letter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1973)ILLJ508Ori
K.B. Panda, J.1. This writ petition raises the simple question whether Balimela Dam Project is an 'industry' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the following context.2. The petitioner was appointed as a machine tool operator, Grade II, on temporary basis and was posted under sub-division No. 15 on a monthly salary of Rs. 108 with usual dearness allowance. In January, 1964 his pay was refixed at Rs. 120 per month. In view of his good work he was upgraded to the post of Grade I Chargeman on a basic pay of Rs. 150 per month in December, 1964. While working so, he developed eye ailment because of working with surface grinding machine without adequate safety measures for which he had to undergo treatment. According to the petitioner, by the use of protective spectacles his eye sight was improving. During the period of treatment he was reverted to the post of machine tool operator, Grade II, on the ground that he was found not suitable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 99(2005)CLT542
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Petitioners are defendants in C.S. No. 42/2002 pending in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul.2. This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the Orders dated 15.12.2003 and 25.3.2004 passed in the said suit rejecting the applications filed by Petitioner No. 1 under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Order VIII, Rules 6-A and 9 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statement and shifting the burden on the defendants to begin the evidence first. It is alleged in the plaint that after the premature death of late Ruchir Kumar Tripathy his wife Krushnapriya Pani @ Tripathy-Opposite Party No. 1 as plaintiff filed C.S. No. 42/2002 praying for recovery of half share out of the three matured L.I.C. Policies held by her late husband. Petitioner No. 2 had allegedly withdrawn the amounts on 19th March, 2001 as nominee in the said policy. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement repudiating the averments made in the plaint. After w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1955]28ITR414(Orissa)
P.V.B. Rao, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to the High Court under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, on an application by the Commissioner. 2. The point that has been raised on this reference is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as stated in the reference at page 3 of the printed paper-book, certain amounts received during the accounting year by the assesses as commission, from some of the parties for whom it was doing business, was income that accrued, arose or was received in British India. The assessment relates to the year 1945-48 before the State of Hyderabad was integrated with India and the assessee is a company doing commission business at Secunderabad. The facts on which the question arises are stated in para 4 of the statement of the case printed at page 2 of the paper book. 3. This matter came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of the then Chief Justice (B. Jagannadhadas J., now a Judge of the Supreme Court) and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 39(1973)CLT864; [1973]32STC98(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, on the following two questions of law for determination of this court:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member is right in holding that a duty is cast on the revenue to fix the actual amount of escapement in a reassessment proceeding ?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member is right in holding that assessment under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act should be confined to the turnover escaped or under-assessed ?2. The assessee, a registered dealer under the Act, deals in aluminium goods. He had been assessed to sales tax under the Act for the year 1962-63. On a discovery of certain dealings of the assessee with other dealers, which had not come to light during the assessment proceedings, action was taken under Section 12(8) of the Act. In the accounts of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. Appellant Garbapu Venkatiramana and two others (Garbapu Prasad and Garbapu Ramulu) were facing trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Sessions Case No.51 of 1997 (Original S.C. No. 158 of 1997 of the Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore) being charged under Sections 302/324/34, IPC. By the judgment and order dated 11.06.1998, the learned trial Judge while acquitting Garbapu Prasad and Garbapu Ramulu of the charge, convicted the appellant under Sections 302/324, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, IPC, but did not impose any separate sentence for the offence under section 324, IPC.2. Case of the prosecution is that on 10.3.1997 at about 8.00 P.M. Garabapu Elemma, the daughter of Garabapu Ramulu (co-accused since acquitted) was shaking the supporting wire of the electric pole situated in the locality. In course of shaking, there was sparking in the live wire of the electric line. P.W.2, the informant (wife...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1986Ori173
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendants 1 and 13 are the appellants against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore, in O. S. No, 98 of 1968.2. The suit is one for partition amongst the four branches of Laxman, Khetramohan, Sitaram and Rama, their common ancestor being one Kusun Das. Laxman has two sons Jagannath and Harekrushna. Jagannath's son Baidyanath is defendant No. 3. Harekrushna is defendant No. 4 and his son Gopinath is defendant No. 14. Khetramohan's wife is Brundabati and their three sons are Gadadhar, Gangadhar and Bhagaban. Gadadhar is plaintiff No. 1 and his son Ganapati is plaintiff -No, 2. Gangadhar is defendant No. 1 and his son Sripati is defendant No. 13. Bhagaban is defendant No. 2. Sitaram has two sons --Chakradhar and Chemei. Chakradhar's wife Aparti is defendant No. 5 and their two sons and a daughter -- Nanda, Panda and Sabitri are defendants 6,7 and 8 respectively. Chemei's widow is Bayani (defendant No. 9) and their sons Musi and Sachindra are defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT245; (2008)15VST228(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition calls in question, the legality of the order dated June 28, 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, (LTU) Cuttack-II Range, Cuttack (hereinafter called the 'the ACST') under Section 30 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter called 'the OVAT Act') whereby claim of the petitioner that furnace oil qualifies to be an 'input' for the purpose of availing input tax credit was rejected. Consequently, a tax demand to the tune of Rs. 32,26,909 was raised by that order.The facts which give rise to the present writ petition are set out below.2. The petitioner in the present case is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 3rd Floor, Maker Chambers-IV, 222, Nariman point, Mumbai-400 021 and factory at Laxmi-nagar, Baulpur, Dhenkanal. It is a dealer registered under the OVAT Act. It manufactures polyester staple fibres (hereinafter referred to as, 'the PSF') through Oris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT282
A.K. Parichha, J.1. This is a Defendants appeal against the Judgment and decree of the Learned District Judge, Cuttack passed in Title Appeal No. 56 of 1993 setting aside the Judgment and decree recorded by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Athagarh in T.S. No. 22 of 1988.2. The original Respondent-Brajabandhu Das filed the above noted suit for partition of the suit property. His averment was that he and the Defendant jointly purchased the suit land measuring Ac.0.66 dec. in plot No. 1468 of Khata No. 571 from one Nemai Ch. Harichandan for a consideration of Rs. 300/- on 30.1.1951 and jointly took delivery of possession and accordingly in the last settlement R.O.R. the suit land was jointly recorded in the name of the Plaintiff and Defendant. However, there was severance of joint family status in the family in the year 1964 and each brother possesses different parcels of land by mutual arrangement. In the process, the Plaintiff and Defendant possessed half and half of the suit land, the P...
Tag this Judgment!