Court : Orissa
Reported in : 82(1996)CLT485; 1996(I)OLR376
R.K. Dash, J. 1. M/s. Rungta Sons Private Ltd. owns mines in the districts of Keonjhar and Sundargarh and by virtue of agreements it has been supplying ores to outside purchasers. So far as the mines in the district of Keonjhar are concerned, the ores are carried either by road transport and/or railway using the rail head/railway siding at Barbil. Since ores are transported through Barbil Municipal area, the Municipal authority has been levying and collecting octroi on sales effected within the Municipal jurisdiction even though the ores sold are meant to be consumed elsewhere. Levy of such tax although has no sanction under any statute, the petitioner has been complying with such illegal demands of the municipality on the apprehension that transportation of ores may be brought to a halt by the authority. Referring to a judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in JT 1994(3) SC 334, where it has been ruled that goods meant to be transported for use or consumption els...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2006(I)OLR385
A.K. Parichha, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur by judgment dated 17th January, 2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 776/ 58 of 2001 convicted the appellant under Section 302, IPC, for having committed the murder of deceased Pravat Ghadei and Kasinath Ghadei and awarded capital punishment of death.On a further finding that the appellant has caused disappearance of evidence of the commission of offence with the intention to screen himself from legal punishment, he also convicted the appellant Under Section 201, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 4 years and pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo R.I. for four months. On a reference being made to this Court under Section 366(1), Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur for confirmation of the sentence of death, DSREF No. 1 of 2005 has been registered.The accused/appellant also challenges to the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence in CRLA No. 58 of 2005.On consent of the parties, both the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT769; 2007(11)OLR1
I. Mahanty, J.1. The present contempt application has been filed under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the Petitioner Smt. Arati Das on the allegation that the Opposite Parties have willfully and intentionally not complied with the Order dated 16.12.2004 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5819 of 2003 which is quoted herein below:Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the State.Learned Counsel for the State on instruction submits that the Director, Higher Education has taken steps for implementation of several orders passed by the Education Tribunal. On consideration of such submission, it is directed that the order of the State Education Tribunal passed in G.I.A. Case No. 28 of 2002 on 12.12.2002 be implemented as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.Requisites for communication of this order along with copy of the Writ Petition to the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 be filled by 20.12.2004.Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(II)OLR335
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by one Prasanta Kumar Nayak, who describes himself as a Member of the Indian Administrative Service (Orissa Cadre) with a prayer for initiating a suo motu proceeding for criminal contempt against opposite party No. 1-Mrs. Harapriya Barik @ Tarai.2. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is invoking the Court's jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but the consent of the Advocate General, which is required to be taken before invoking this jurisdiction, has not been obtained. The learned Counsel submitted that he is seeking to initiate a suo motu proceeding of criminal contempt against opposite party No. 1 for the statements allegedly made by her.3. In support of the petitioner's case for initiating a suo motu proceeding for criminal contempt against opposite party No. 1, learned Counsel placed reliance on certain materials.4. The Court's attention was first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT521; 2007(2)CTLJ100(Ori); 2006(II)OLR642
R.N. Biswal, J.1. As per the writ petition, petitioner No. 1 was incorporated in 1985 under the Companies Act, 1956. In the year 1997 it took over a sick cement unit established at Teleghana in the district of Sundargarh which was being run earlier by IPI-SP Cement Company Limited, a joint sector unit under the State Government. To run the cement unit, petitioner No. 1 applied to opp. party No. 4 for supply of coal by way of coal linkage, in response to which the General Manager (Marketing) of the said opp. party intimated vide letter dated 22.7.1988 (Annexure-1) that it was decided to fix up final linkage for the petitioner No. 1's unit at maximum permissible quantity of 2500 M.T. coal per month and that opp. party No. 1 would supply it coal on the basis of annual recommendation of concerned sponsoring authority i.e. Director, Industry of Orissa. Accordingly, on basis of the recommendation of the Sponsoring Authority, coal was being supplied to the petitioner by opp. party No. 1 from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 104(2007)CLT792
S. Panda, J.1. Challenge in this Civil Revision is to the Order Dated 17.7.2004 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack in Title Suit No. 29/92(FD) rejecting the application of the Petitioners to withdraw the suit with a liberty to bring a fresh suit.2. The facts of the case relevant for appreciation of the questions raised In this Civil Revision are as follows;Petitioners being the Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition against the Defendants the present Opposite Parties. The suit was preliminarily decreed ex parte against the said Defendants. The final decree proceeding has also been commenced after acceptance of the Commissioner's report as per the preliminary decree. At that stage the Plaintiff-Petitioners had filed a petition for amendment of the plaint to delete one lot of property from the suit schedule as the said property was wrongfully included in the plaint. The petition for amendment was rejected on 29.1.2004. Plaintiff-Petitioners had also fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1994(I)OLR435
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioner has assailed the vires of Section 5-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') as inserted by the Orissa Act 11 of 1990 which came into force on 1-7- 1990.2. Though a Bench of this Court had upheld the validity of the aforesaid section in O.J.C. No. 172 of 1992 (M/s. Sitania Enterprisers v. State of Orissa) decided on 13-7-1993, Shri Agrawal appearing for the petitioner contends that the point which he seeks to urge had not been canvassed in that O.J.C. We have, therefore, heard the learned counsel on the new point on the strength of which he seeks to assail the validity.3. Let us note the relevant part of the section at the threshold.'5-A (1) Every dealer whose gross turnover during any year exceeds rupees ten lakhs shall, in addition to the tax payable by him under this Act, also pay a surcharge at the rate of ten percentum of the total amount of the tax payable by him ;Provided that the aggregate of the tax and surcharge payable un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 103(2007)CLT209
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 5.1.2004 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sonepur in Election Appeal (RFA No. 57 of 2003) filed by Opposite party No. 1 allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgment and order dated 20.03.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sonepur in Misc. Judicial Case No, 17 of 2002 and declaring the election of the Petitioner as a returned candidate to the office of Sarpanch, Lachhipur Grama Panchayat void and consequently declaring a casual vacancy to the said office.2. The brief facts of the case are that the seat of Sarpanch, Lachhipur Grama Panchayat was reserved for Scheduled Castes category in the last election held in the year 2002. The Petitioner as well as Opposite party No. 1 both filed their nomination papers before the Election Officer scrutiny of which was conducted on 22.1.2002 wherein the Opposite party No. 1 raised written objection before the Election Officer challenging the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1962Ori202
ORDERS. Barman, J. 1. Sri Shanti Prasad Jain, an industrialist and financier,--who until lately was Chairman of the Board of Directors of Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company), is the petitioner in the complaint herein under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 on the ground of alleged continuing and continuous process of oppression to some part of the members of the Company (including the petitioner) and mis-management in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Company, arising out of group factions in the directorate of the Company, where the petitioner's rival groups are alleged to have acted with the ulterior motive of gaining voting power to obtain control of the Company for the said rival groups and their nominees to the exclusion of the petitioner, his group and his nominees, in the circumstances hereinafter stated. 2. The petitioner represents what is known as the Jain Group in the Company Respondent No. 1 is the Company; r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2007]292ITR175(Orissa)
I. Mahanty, J.1. M/s. Tata Sponge Iron Limited, the appellant, is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of sponge iron and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking to challenge the order dated October 13, 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 83/CTK/2000 pertaining to the assessment year 1996-97.2. This court vide the order dated May 3, 2006, was pleased to admit the appeal on the following two questions of law:(I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the expenses incurred towards repairs, depreciation and salary paid to staff looking after the transit house indirectly is not allowable as deduction while computing the income from business solely because of the provision in Section 37(4A) of the Income-...
Tag this Judgment!