Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(II)OLR155
S. Panda, J.1. Heard argument from both the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Angul in Sessions Trial No. 29-A/1996/28 of 1997, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C.3. Briefly, the facts, as disclosed by the prosecution, are that the incident took place on 30th October, 1995 inside a forest. The deceased Sambari Biswal, aged about 55 years, had gone to the forest to collect firewood. As the deceased did not return by 3.00 p.m., the informant and others searched for her and found her dead body at about 4.30 p.m., lying near a bush having injuries on her head and neck. On the same day the appellant had also gone to the forest to bring firewood. On being asked by the villagers, appellant confessed that he killed the deceased by means of a 'Tangia'. Prior to the incident, appellant had also tried to murder the deceased, as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3881; 2009(II)OLR135
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. In the present revision application the petitioner has sought for quashing of an order dated 5.4.2008 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No. 119 of 2007/V.Gr.122 of 1999, by which, a petition filed by the Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance), Cuttack under Section 319 Cr.P.C. came to be allowed and the learned Special Judge came to a finding that, a prima facie case under, Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act having been found against the petitioner (who. was then working as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Cuttack) can be tried together with the co-accused in the pending trial and accordingly, directed for the issue of summons against the petitioner.2. Mr. Mund, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been posted as Motor Vehicle Inspector at Cuttack in the year 1997. One Md. Siddique submitted a written report on 9.12.1997 before the S.P. (Vigilance), Cuttack to the effe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2010Ori23; 2009(II)OLR448
I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 5 i.e. 1st M.A.C.T., Mayurbhanj, Baripada to disburse the amount settled through Lok Adalat to them without demanding any Court fees on the awarded amount.2. In view of the above prayer, the question before this Court is whether the claimant in whose favour the accident claim has been settled through Lok Adalat is liable to deposit the Court fee first and thereafter get a certification from the M.A.C.T. and on the basis of the certificate receive back from the Collector the full amount of Court fee or he can receive the claim even without depositing the Court fees, if not already deposited.3. In the instant case, the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Siba Sankar Das, who died on 3.7.2007 in a road accident and they filed the case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayurbhanj, Baripada claiming compensation under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 104(2007)CLT639
B.P. Das, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Judgment dated 30.8.2005 passed by the District Judge-Cum-Election Tribunal, Sundargarh in Election Petition No. 5 of 2003 upholding the election of O.P. No. 1 -Purna Chandra Rout to the office of the Councillor of Ward No. 9 of Rajgangpur Municipality and dismissing the election petition filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner challenged the election on the ground that the same was invalid, improper and unlawful as O.P. No. 1 was disqualified under Clauses (xvi) and (xvii) of Section 16(1) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (for short, the 'Act') for having more than one spouse living and for having more than two children at the time of filing the nomination paper for the election.2. Briefly stated, the case of the Petitioner is that election of Councillors of different wards of Rajgangpur Municipality was notified to be held on 19.9.2003, the last date for filing nomination papers being 30.8.2003 and the date of scrutiny of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2003Ori205; 96(2003)CLT241; 2003(II)OLR215
R.K. Patra, J.1. The short but ticklish question that arises for consideration in this civil revision is whether a woman who has applied for grant of succession certificate is entitled to exemption of court fees by virtue of Law Department Notification No. SRO 575/94 dated 7.6.1994 published in the Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary) No. 670 dated 10.6.1994. Two of the learned Judges of this Court have taken different view in the matter. One learned Judge in Sharmila Das v. State of Orissa, 85 (1998) CLT 520 has held that the fee payable under Article 12 of Schedule-I of the Court-Fees Act, 1870 not being a fee for the purpose of filing or instituting a case for grant of certificate, it is not covered by the said notification. The judgment in that case was delivered by the learned Judge on 29.9.1997. Another learned Single Judge in his order dated 29.1.1998 in Civil Revision No. 370 of 1996 (Smt. Saudamini Das v. State of Orissa, 85 (1998) CLT 524) has held to the contrary and opined that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1991(31)ECC385; 1992(61)ELT425(Ori)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application under Section 35-G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Collector of Central Excise. Despite valid service of notice, opposite party has not entered appearance.2. Opposite party filed an application in form AL-4 prescribed under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules for a licence to manufacture Ferro Silicon/Charge Chromein its factory at Therumbal. On that basis licence in Form AL-4 was granted. When it came to notice of the Collector the factory had no industrial licence for producing charge Chrome as per Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1981 (sic) Collector exercising' power under Rule 180 deleted 'Charge Chrome' from the licence in Form L-4 with effect from 1-7-1985. Against this order opposite party preferred an appeal in Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. Appellate Tribunal restored the licence in respect of Charge Chrome on the finding that Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2007)5VST83(Orissa)
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. Since both the tax revision cases involve identical facts and raise identical questions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In both the tax revision cases, two questions of law were raised for consideration of this Court and out of those two questions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued only one. The question on which both the tax revision cases were argued is as under:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that Robinson barley is not covered under SI. No. 33 vide notification dated June 30, 1990 and is not taxable at the first point of sale ?3. The material facts of the case which gave rise to the aforesaid question are narrated below:M/s. Satyanarayan Bhandar, the petitioner in both the cases, is a registered partnership firm and carries on business in grocery, stationery, manohary goods, ayurvedic medicines, pan masala and salt, etc. The petitioner is a registe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT132; 2007(II)OLR768
R.N. Biswal, J.1. Both the appeals having arisen out of one judgment, the same were heard together and a common judgment is passed thereon.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that on 12.3.1990 at about 8.00 A.M. Ranjit Meher (P.W. 11), Ramanath Mehera (P.W. 1), Pitabash Meher (P.W. 10) and about 40 to 50 others had been on a picnic to Sighinika jungle. At about 12.30 P.M. accused Puma Behera, Babru Behera and Sala Behera came to the picnic spot and asked to provide them food. While all the members of the picnic party and the aforesaid three persons were taking their food, Babru Behera started throwing rice at which Ranjit Meher (P.W. 11) rebuked him. Then Sala Behera, Babru Behera and Puma Behera stopped taking food and left the place. After the picnic was over Ranjit Meher (P.W. 11), Pitabash Meher (P.W. 10) and about five to six others returned in a jeep being driven by Narasingh Behera, while the rest returned in cycles. On the way, about 1 K.M. ahead of village Rampur, Na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR706
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. In this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. petitioners have prayed to quash the F.I.R. in Tigiria P.S, Case No. 109 of 2001, stated to be involving the offences punishable under Section 341/323/324/506/34, I.P.C. read withSection 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989, (in short the Act). This application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was heard along with a batch of cases involving the similar legal issues and has been disposed of by separate judgments in each of the cases. It be noted that, both the parties consented for disposal of this application Under Section 482. Cr. P.C. at the stage of admission.2. One of the legal issues which is involved in the batch of the cases, is whether investigation made by a police officer not appointed in accordance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. 1995. (in short, the Rules), read with Section 9 of the Act is valid to take cog...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(1)ARBLR116(Orissa); 102(2006)CLT657
B.P. Das, J.1. Both these appeals being Arbitration Appeal Nos. 12 and 13 of 2006 have been filed by M/s. Bhanja Minerals Pvt. Ltd. challenging separate orders dated 13.7.2006 passed by the District Judge, Cuttack, in Arbitration Petition No. 93 of 2006 and No. 92 of 2006 respectively. Both the appeals being inter-linked and common questions of facts and law being involved in the same, they were, with the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellant-M/s. Bhanja Minerals Pvt. Ltd. ('BMPL' in short), which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, holds lease of an iron ore mines known as 'Inganijharan Iron and Manganese Mines' in Keonjhar district granted by the Govt. of Orissa. On 21.2.2003, BMPL entered into an agreement/contract with M/s. Technicast Engineers Ltd., ('Technicast' hereinafter), which is also a company registered under the Companies Act, 1952 (sic.) having its registered office...
Tag this Judgment!