Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori12; 2008(1)ARBLR330(Orissa); 104(2007)CLT454
S. Panda, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against an Order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Learned 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in M.S. No. 792/319 of 2004/1995 rejecting an application of the Petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to stay the further proceedings of the suit as the dispute is already under the arbitration proceeding between the parties.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; The Petitioner-company is the Defendant and the Opposite Party is the Plaintiff before the Court below. Opposite Party had filed a Money Suit No. 319/792 of 1995/2004 before the Court below for realization of an amount of Rs. 28,585/- from the Defendant along with pendente lite interest and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The suit was filed on 24.7.1995. The case of the Plaintiff is that he was awarded a security contract No. MKTG/Exp/Paradeep- C & F/Security and the said contra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT639; 2007(I)OLR662
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 13.11.2001 passed by the Central Government-opposite party No. 1 on the revision application filed by Shri Ganapati Raj Jain- O.P. No. 4. By the said order, opposite party No. 1 quashed the renewal of the petitioner's mining lease for iron ore over an area of 335.896 hectares which is about 830 acres and by the same order opposite party No. 1 directed the State Government to grant the mining lease for iron ore over an area of 60.70 hectares in favour of opposite party No. 4.2. The material facts of the case are as follows:Way back in 1955, the petitioner applied for the grant of mining lease for manganese ore over an area of 830 acres for Balda Block in Keonjhar district for a period of 20 years. On such application, the State Government on or about 16.11.1956 granted mining lease to the petitioner for 20 years for the aforesaid area. Then the mining lease for manganese ore was executed in favo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2007Ori152; 2007(II)OLR74
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.Misc. Case Nos. 8 and 21 of 20061. This is a petition by the claimant-respondent No. 1 seeking direction of this Court to the appellant to deposit the entire awarded amount and to allow him (R-1) to withdraw 50% of such deposited amount without furnishing any guarantee or security and the balance 50% by furnishing bank guarantee or property security. According to the claimant-respondent, her lands were acquired in the year 1983 for Bidanasi Triangular Development Project, but till date she has not received the compensation for the lands as the matter is still pending for determination of the fair market price, as a result, she is undergoing undue hardship and irreparable injury. Counter affidavit has been filed by the appellant wherein it is stated that in view of Order 27, Rule 8-A of the C.P.C., the State Government cannot be asked to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security contemplated under Order 41, Rule 1{3) or Order 41, Rule 5 (5) of the C.P.C.2. Le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(II)OLR98
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J. Misc. Case No. 105 of 20031. This is a petition by the appellant-petitioner for stay of further proceeding of Execution Case No. 10 of 2000 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court, Cuttack till disposal of this appeal.2. The plea of the appellant-petitioner is that the award, which is under challenge in the appeal is being executed in the above noted execution proceeding and if the execution is carried then the purpose of the appeal will be frustrated.3. Objection has been filed by the respondents-opposite parties indicating therein that although their lands were acquired in the year 1985, compensation has not yet been paid as a result they are undergoing undue hardship and irreparable loss. They claim that law does not relish delay in making payment once the award is made and the Land Acquisition Act also clearly prescribes deposit of the awarded amount at every stage of the proceeding and for that reason no stay of the execution ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 104(2007)CLT148; 2007(11)OLR184
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Petitioner is brother of Haramani Sahoo, the deceased Plaintiff in O.S. No. 22 of 1993 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri. She figured as Respondent No. 1 in Title Appeal No. 60 of 1999 of the Court of District Judge, Puri. On her death, Petitioner filed application for substitution. That was rejected by Learned District Judge as per the impugned order passed on 4.5.2002. As against that order, Petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 259 of 2002. In view of amendment of Section 115,C.P.C. in 2002, Petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No. 9878 of 2003 under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a matter of abundant caution. Thus, on consent of the parties, the Civil Revision and the Writ Petition were heard analogously and this common Judgment shall abide the result in both the cases.2. Harshamani, the original Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 228 of 1993 claiming for decree of monthly maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/-from her husband, i.e., Defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1993(II)OLR524
A. Pasayat, J.1. Order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Raghunathpur in a proceeding Under Section 9 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short, the 'Act') is primarily the subject-matter of challenge. Addition- ally it is submitted that the officers appointed under the Act to exercise various functions are not well equipped to deal with the complicated questions of fact and law, and therefore, the authorities who are expected to substitute the judicial officers trying suits in Civil Courts, by and large are deficient and as a result the administration of justice has become a casualty.2. Before we deal with the larger question relating to functioning of the officers appointed under the Act, it is necessary to deal with the main challenge.The fact situation is almost undisputed. Objection Case Mo. 3256/730 of 1989 was filed Under Section 9 (3) of the Act by 35 persons who are arraigned as opposite party Nos. 6 to 40 in this wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. The facts and law involved in all the writ petitions being the same, albeit IMFA and NALCO raised some extra points of facts and laws, they are heard analogously and the following common judgment is passed thereon. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners, all of whom generate energy for their own consumption, challenge the vires of the Orissa Electricity Duty Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in so far as Sections 2, 3 and 5 thereof are concerned. They also challenge the notification No.7721-P-II-Ed.15/92 E wherein Electricity Duty was fixed @ 12 paise for a person not being licencee or board who generate such energy for his own use or consumption. They further challenged the Notification No.GRIDCO-ED- 3/2001-18237, dated 10.10.2001 issued by State Government in their Department of Energy, wherein electricity duty was increased from 0.12 paise to 0.20 paise per unit. According to the petitioners, the impugned impost is expressly on generation/production of electric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(4)ARBLR509(Orissa); 104(2007)CLT46
A.S. Naidu, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', the Appellant seeks to assail the Order dated 23rd September, 2006 passed by the Learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Arb(P) No. 383 of 2006. The said Arb(P) was initiated on the basis of a petition filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Act with a prayer to restrain Respondents 1 and 2, officers of the Orissa Mining Corporation, from invoking a Bank Guarantee furnished by it with the Corporation.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are that Appellant M/s, Visa International Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Kolkata is the Indian Agent of M/s. Visa Comtrade AG, Aegeristrasse, ZUG, Switzerland. It had been authorized by the said Company of Switzerland to act and operate on behalf of the said Company in India in the matter of purchase and export ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(II)OLR658
R.N. Biswal, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.11.1989 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bargarh in Sessions Trial No. 18/7 of 1989 wherein while acquitting the co-accused he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder to undergo R.I. for one year.2. The laconic fact of the prosecution case is that on 23.7.1988 P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 sowed paddy in plot No. 2244 appertaining to Khata No. 176 covering an area of Ac. 0.12 decimals locally known as Budhendoli/Talidoli in mouza Kebad. In the night, since there was heavy down pour of rain, on the day break, all of them went to the said land to drain out water, if accumulated and on reaching there saw accused Somanath Bhoi ploughing it, while accused Sabitri Bhoi, Indrajit Bhoi and accused-appellant Jujesthi Bhoi standing on the ridge. P.Ws. 4 and 7 protested the highhandedness of the accused persons and prevented accused Somanath Bhoi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(II)OLR146
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment and order dated 5th August, 1987 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. No. 52 of 1987 convicting the appellant of the charge under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years is assailed in this appeal.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that there was prior dispute among the informant family and the family of the appellant over demarcation of the boundary among their adjoining homestead lands and raising offence. On 22.11.1986 morning deceased Bairagi had called P.W. 2 Bansidhar Dandapat the head of village of the parties who discussed with the family members of deceased and appellant at an open space in front of the house of the deceased and decided that by putting a rope from the point of a 'Siju' tree upto the end of a wall, the parties might put the demarcating fence. While he was about to return from that place, at that juncture of time the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!