Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1994(46)ECC137; 1994(74)ELT802(Ori)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The notice issued to the petitioner No. 1 Company by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), annexed as Annexure-2, has been assailed by the petitioners in this writ application. By the said notice, the Petitioner-company has been called upon to show cause as to why a duty of central excise amounting to Rs. 5,76,180/- should not be paid by the petitioner on 540 metric tonnes of charge-chrome valued at Rs. 52,38,000/- at the rate of Rs. 9,700/- per metric tonne under Section 11A(1) of the Act and a duty of central excise amounting to Rs. 2,50,450/- should not be paid by the petitioner on 2,504.5 metric tonnes of charge-chrome slag valued at Rs. 25,04,500/- at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per metric tonne under said Section 11A(1) of the Act and further why a penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173(Q) of the 'Rules' for the period 1-4-1983 to 5-8-1983. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2003Ori81
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Indian Bank as Plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 159 of 1977 for recovery of Rs. 3,11,500.43 with interest pendente lite and future and for other ancillary reliefs based on a Demand Promissory Note coupted with a deed of mortgage and other collateral documents duly executed by the defendants in favour of the Bank.2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the facts averred in the plaint which are necessary for effectual adjudication are :--Defendant No. 1, a Private Limited Company of which defendants 2 to 5 are the Directors, approached the plaintiff, which is a Nationalised Bank, for a cash credit loan in the year 1959. After examining the viability, the plaintiff-Bank agreed to advance a cash-credit loan to a tune of Rs. 9 lakhs to the defendants. As collateral security, defendant No. 1-Company mortgaged all its assets to the Bank and created a charge in accordance with Sections 125 to 130 of theCompanies Act on July 2, I960. Defendants 2 to 5 executed a Demand Promisso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(I)OLR413
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had insured the bus bearing Regn. No. OSP-2081 belonging to Respondent No. 2 herein. In an accident that occurred, respondent No. 1 suffered injuries. He thereupon approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri with Misc. Case No. 654 of 1989 claiming that he had suffered injuries in the accident and that he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. As usual, in this case also, the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 2 herein remained exparte. The Insurance Company filed a written statement contesting the claim. It disputed the liability. The Insurance Company also sought permission to take all defences available, in case the owner of the vehicle did not contest the proceeding. The compensation claimed was contended to be highly exaggerated and arbitrary. The Tribunal raised the necessary issues. On behalf of the claimant, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2. No on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2006Ori82; 101(2006)CLT393; 2006(1)CTLJ261(Ori)
A.K. Parichha, J.1. The First Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 30.4.2003 and the decree dated 15.5.2003 passed in T.S. No. 262 of 1995 by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Cuttack dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.2. Initially, the appellant and his father Gobardhan Das Nangalia were plaintiffs in the above noted suit, but Gobardhan Das Nangila having died during pendency of the suit, plaintiff No. 2 became the sole plaintiff and accordingly is now the sole appellant in this appeal.3. The case of the plaintiffs was that the deceased defendant No. 1, Nanda Kishore Goenka had a row of five shop rooms standing over Schedule 'A' land and in one of the shop rooms, plaintiff No. 1 Gobardhan Das Nangalia, the deceased father of the appellant was a monthly tenant since 1945 paying rent to the landlord. When the matter stood thus, Nanda Kishore Goenka entered into an oral agreement with the appellant and his father on 3.11.1994 to sell those five shop rooms to them ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT442; (2008)15VST587(Orissa)
I. Mahanty, J.1. The Petitioner is Government of Orissa Undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged, inter alia, in the business of generation of power and for such purpose, it has established Thermal Power Plants for operation and maintenance of the same within the State of Orissa.2. The Petitioner-Company applied for registration as a dealer both under the O.S.T, Act and the C.S.T. Act to the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar and was granted with C.S.T. registration Certificate on 17.3.1987 under Section 7(2) of the C.S.T. Act and the following endorsement was made on the registration certificate granted to the Petitioner under the C.S.T. Act and 'all machineries and equipments associated with construction operation and maintenance of large Thermal Power Station, Pumps, Compressors, earth moving Machineries, Turbine generators, Transformers, Switch gears and Laboratory equipments'.3. After the aforesaid certificate was granted to the Petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT36
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Though this matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner, who is accused in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2001 of the Court of Learned Adl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri for the offence under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act failed to appear at the stage of accused statement for a considerable time for which the Learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for adjournment presented by the Learned Counsel for the accused and after hearing the argument on the same day, delivered the judgment, in which he convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A. IPC. Since the accused-petitioner was not available for hearing on the matter of sentence, Learned Trial Court issued N.B.W. along with process under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and also noticed the bailor to produce the accused-petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 75(1993)CLT424; 1993(I)OLR203
L. Rath, J.1. The question urged in this revision is whether while convicting a person Under Section 448, IPC because of having committed offence under part-III of Section 441, IPC of the Orissa amendment, direction can be issued Under Section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to deliver the premises to the complainant. The opposite party was admittedly a tenant in the house of the petitioner-complainant and because he did not vacate the house in spite of the necessary notice served upon him, the petitioner filed the complaint alleging an offence Under Section 448, IPC to have been committed. On trial the opposite party was convicted of the offence but the learned Magistrate refused to restore possession of the house to the complainant being of the view that Section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable and that the decision cited on behalf of the petitioner, 48(1979) CLT 519 (Dhani Dibya v. Kashinath Nanda), also was not applicable to the case. It is this order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT266; 2007(I)OLR84
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 22.07.2002 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore in S.T. Case No. 103/163 of 2000 convicting the appellants under Section 395 and 376(g) IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, on each count; the sentences to run concurrently. Since all the appeals have been filed challenging the same order, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The case of the prosecution is that in the night of 04.07.1999 the informant and his family members, i.e., his wife, two daughters and one son, were sleeping in different rooms of their house. At about 11 p.m. to 12 p.m., some unknown persons by abusing him in filthy language knocked at his door. Out of fear, he opened the door and three persons being armed with deadly weapons like B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2001(II)OLR482; [2002]126STC79(Orissa)
R.K. Patra, J.1. On the basis of reference made by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in brief 'Tribunal'), the matter was registered as S.J.C. No. 61 of 1995. Following the amendment to Section 24 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the said reference has been converted to tax revision and that is how it has come before us for disposal.2. The Tribunal referred the following question for opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to any relief of adjustment with respect of the taxes already paid by him on the transactions of purchase in a proceeding under, Section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, if the dealer was found to be liable under the Act prior to grant of registration certificate ?'3. Upon hearing the counsel for parties and on perusal of the relevant orders passed by the authorities under the Act, the question really arises for consideration is, whether the assessments are li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT147; (2007)10VST547(Orissa)
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. The Petitioner, a registered company, claims to have established its plant in 1937 to manufacture paper and pulp. The case of the Petitioner is that as there was erratic supply of power by the State, it wanted to establish new captive power generation plant under which the power would be captively used by the Petitioner's factory which is situated at Brajarajnagar. The further case of the Petitioner is that it is a registered dealer both under Orissa Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The relevant registration certificates of the Petitioner, both under OST and CST, show that the Petitioner is entitled to purchase among other things plants, machinery and accessories on the strength of its registration certificates. The Petitioner's own case is that on such certificate it continued to purchase for its existing power plant, machinery and articles on concessional rate of tax under Section 8(1) of the CST Act and this was done to the knowledge of opposite party No. ...
Tag this Judgment!