Court : Orissa
Reported in : 86(1998)CLT170; 1997(II)OLR444
R.K. Patra, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner-Parameswar Mohanty prays for quashing of the order passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Balaosre at Annexure-5 by which he has been called upon to show cause as to why action would not be taken against him under Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 for unauthorised occupation of Government land (fully described in the notice as an area of 16' x 12' Abada Jagya Anabadi, kissam Gharabari, appertaining to plot No. 173 under Khata No. 247 in mouza Purusottampur).2. The case of the petitioner is that his three sons, Amareswar, Ajiteswar and Aditeswar purchased the land measuring Ac. 0.04 of hal plot No. 135 under hal Khata Nos. 10 and 11, Ac. 0.03 of hal plot No. 136 and Ac. 0.07 of hal plot No. 137, in mauza Samaraipur from one Smt. Pravavati Ghosh by a registered sale-deed dated 17.4.1978 and they have been in possession of the aforesaid land from the date of the execution of the sale-deed in thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1995(II)OLR66
A. Pasayat, J.1. The respondents suit for injunction in respect of allotment of a room, and for payment of compensation by way of damages having been accepted so far as the prayer relating to injunction is concerned, this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'Code') has been filed.2. Factual position essentially is not disputed. Filtering out unnecessary details, it is to the following effect.Plaintiffs version is that they are partners of a registered partnership firm styled M/s. Orissa Cloth Store, Bhadrak Notified Area Council (hereinafter referred to as the 'Council') started construction of six rooms in front of the Lokanath Temple within the Notified Area. It was completed in March, 1978, and was available to be let out. Plaintiffs applied for taking one of the rooms on rent, and en order of allotment relating to room No. 1 was issued with a direction to deposit Rs. 1,000/- as security and a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- as advance, with furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori184
ORDERS.K. Ray, J. 1. The respondent, Smt. Nandini Satpathy, was elected as a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly in a by-election from the Cuttack City Assembly Constituency. The polling in this Constituency took place on 26-11-1972. On 10-1-1973, which was the last date under the law for the presentation of an election petition, Shri Ajit Prasad Narayan Singh, alleging himself to be an 'elector' of the aforesaid Constituency presented or filed the election petition in question challenging the election of the respondent on the- ground, inter alia, that the respondent has herself committed various corrupt practices or has connived at commission of such corrupt practices by other persons. Till 19-6-1973, this petition was being dealt with by the Chief Justice who settled the Issues and some interim matters and on 28-6-1973, he passed the following order:-- 'Put up three weeks after when a judge will be selected for trying the election case. All these interim matters will be put up ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1993(44)ECC65; 1994(72)ELT538(Ori)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company and petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the company. They have filed this writ application to declare the amendment made on 1st of May, 1986, to the Notification No. 133/85-Customs, as well as the Notification No. 67/87-Cus-toms, dated 1-3-1987 to be constitutionally invalid being discriminatory in nature and have further prayed to quash the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Paradeep, dated 17th of August, 1987, annexed as Annexure-3, by which order the said Assistant Collector has cancelled the registration of the project contract/85-86. Under the Notification No. 133/85-Customs, dated 19th of April, 1985, which has been issued by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (1) of the Section 25 of the Customs Act, an Explanation has been added and under the explanation the expression 'Powered Projects' shall mean,' ... such projects whose output of end-product is power, but shall n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. These petitions have been filed by the owners of the land acquired by the State Government in favour of the opposite party Anil Agarwal Foundation (hereinafter in short called as Foundation') for establishment of a University in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act' in short). The public interest litigation petitions have been filed both on behalf of the land owners who have no access to justice and also on behalf of the public of the locality of the lands whose public interest is affected by violating Rule of Law in acquiring vast tract of both Government, Temple and private lands in favour of the Foundation. They were listed and heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment. With a view to avoid repetition of pleadings and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we would briefly state the necessary fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3049; 1995(I)OLR658
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Three petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') call in question legality of their conviction for commission of offences punishable under Secs.306 and 498A read with Secs. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'). Petitioners faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 498A and 304(3) read with Section 34, 1PC. Learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara held that petitioners were liable for conviction under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34, lPC. Each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for their conviction under Section 498A read with Section 34, IPC. Similarly, each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for their conviction under Section 306 read with Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1991(II)OLR206
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in wholesale season rial goods like pulses, oil seeds, etc. which are declared commodities within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). He purchases these goods from the local market and effects sale of the goods, in course of inter-State trade. The goods purchased by the petitioner are taxed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act at the purchase point and the petitioner has paid taxes on the same. He has also to be taxed under the Act. Once the tax under the Act is paid, he gets refund of the taxes paid in Orissa under the Orissa Safes-Tax. Act. For the assessment years starting from 1974-75, the petitioner has been assessed to central safes tax. in those years, he was entitled to refund, but despite approaches being made the refunds have not been made, for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80- and 1981-82, the pefrtio- ner has been assessed to tax under the Act. Once the tax demanded is paid, he will be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1993(I)OLR439
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. Accused is in revision against order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, not allowing his prayer to read as evidence certain receipts filed by him or to recall the complainant for further examination with reference to the receipts or to afford reasonable opportunity to the accused to prove the same.2. Accused petitioner is being tried for the offences Under Sections 419 and 420, IPC. in the Court below. Statement of the accused petitioner was recorded on 19-9-1988. He declined to adduce evidence and argument was heard on that day. The case was then posted to 24-9-1988 for judgment. On 23-9-1988 the accused filed a petition stating that he was filing some money receipts which may be read as evidence in the case, if their genuineness is not disputed or also complainant may be recalled for further examination or reasonable opportunity may be given to the accused to prove those receipts.3. It is urged on behalf of the accused, that the trial Court should have allowed his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 67(1989)CLT601; 1989(42)ELT552(Ori)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, levy of duty on Electricity under Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by Section 36 of Finance Act 1978 is assailed by the petitioner, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913.2. Petitioner carries on the business of manufacture of paper and paper board, for which it has a factory at Brajarajnagar. It has also a plant to manufacture Caustic Soda which is required to be used for the production of paper. Electricity is necessary for the purpose of running the factories. For that purpose, petitioner has a power plant to generate electricity. It also gets supply of electricity from the Orissa State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') on payment of charges.3. After the Act was amended in 1978, providing for levy of duty on electricity by including item 11E to the first schedule, the Board demanded additional amount fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 78(1994)CLT707; 1995CriLJ387; 1994(II)OLR357
B.N. Dash, J.1. The petitioner is the Superintendent of Police Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna and he has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') for quashing the order dated 30-10-1992 taking cognizance as also the entire criminal proceeding in ICC No. 61 of 1992 on the file of the SD JM. Bhawanipatna in which the order taking cognizance was passed.2. The opp. party No. 1 Sri Man Mohan Mathur is a member of the Rajya Sabha and he filed the aforesaid complaint case against the petitioner alleging that on 19-10-1992 at about 8 A. M. while he along with one Shri Bhupinder Singh and others were discussing about the starvation death in the district of Kalahandi with Shri J. B. Patnaik, the P. C. C. (I) President, some police officials came and took away Shri Singh after arresting him. Having failed in his attempt to contact the petitioner over phone to know the reason of the arrest of Shri Singh, the opp. party No. 1 went to Bhawa...
Tag this Judgment!