Court : Orissa
Reported in : II(2007)ACC893; AIR2007Ori85; 103(2007)CLT308
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Although this Letters Patent Appeal was listed for orders, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, it was taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of by this Judgment.2. The Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.A. No. 203/2000 dismissing the appeal subject to the observation and direction that a sum of Rs. 25, 000/- which was kept-in fixed deposit, be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal with accrued interest and the Insurance Company was to deposit the balance amount before the Claims Tribunal is impugned in this appeal. By way of an interim order in this appeal this Court has directed that out of the compensation awarded an amount of Rs. 10, 000/- shall be paid to the injured and the balance amount of Rs. 1, 50,000/- together with the interest as directed by the Tribunal be deposited with the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court within two weeks and upon deposit of such ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(1)OLR172
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack had decided Original Application No. 91 of 2002 filed by one Smt. Manikmala Maity (opposite party No. 1 in W.P.C No. 4843 of 2004) with a direction to the Railway authorities of S.E. Railway to release DCRG amount payable to her husband. While her husband was paid pension and other retirement benefits, the Railway authorities did not make payment under DCRG although he was representing them regularly. In the meantime, her husband died in March, 1999 and thus, she has claimed interest at the rate of 18% for the delay caused.2. The said original application was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 26th June, 2003 directing the respondent to make payment of the DCRG amount and pay interest for the delay @ 10% from 1.11.1997 to 31.10.2002 on the entire amount of DCRG and at the rate of 6% from 01.12.2002 to the preceding month of issuing the order of payment. The final payment was directed to be effected wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR249
M.M. Das, J.1. The order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 7 of 2006 where-under he has taken cognizance of offence under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d)/7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') against the petitioner and another, is impugned in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. An F.I.R. was lodged on 27.2.2005 by one Ramakanta Nayak, inter alia, alleging that after a Civil Suit bearing No. 897 of 1990 being decreed on 27.11.2004, the father of the informant filed a Mutation Case, being Mutation Case No. 1501 of 2005 on 14.2.2005. The Tahasildar, Balasore on receiving the application for mutation from the father of the informant, directed the Revenue Inspector-Narayan Chandra Behera to enquire and submit a report by 21.2.2005. The informant visited the Office of the Revenue Inspector and requested him to expedite the inquiry. The Revenue Inspector-Narayan Chandra Behera demanded an il...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR193
R.N. Biswal, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 8.3.2003 passed by the J.M.F.C., Aska in G.R. Case No. 390 of 2002 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 493/417 of I.P.C. against petitioner No. 1 and under Section 417/109 of I.P.C. against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegation depicted in the complaint petition which was treated as F.I.R., is believed to be true in its entirety, still then the offence under Section 493 of I.P.C. cannot be made out against petitioner No. 1. However, he fairly submits that there is material to proceed with under Section 417 of I.P.C. against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the offence under Sections 417/109 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, even if the entire allegation made against them is accepted in its face value. Learned Addl. Government Advocate supports the impugned order.4. On perusal of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1992]193ITR344(Orissa)
A. PASAYAT J. - At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') for adjudication under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee entitled to the deduction of interest of Rs. 1,97,616 while computing its income from business ?'The factual position as culled from the statement of case submitted by the Tribunal is as follows :The assessee is a limited company deriving income from business in the manufacture and sale of ferro-silicon. During the assessment year 1975-76, corresponding to the previous year ending on December 31, 1974, the assessee invested a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs in equity shares of a company styled Indian Metals and Carbide Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the subsidiary company'). Apart from the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009ACJ435; 2008(I)OLR11
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. When this matter is taken up, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner to move this writ petition nor any mention has been made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for adjournment of the case.I have gone through the contents of the writ petition.2. As it appears certified copy of the impugned award has not been filed along with writ petition at the time of its presentation. Only the free copy of the award, which is supplied to the Insurance Company for compliance, has been filed. The free copy of the award is supplied to the parties for the purpose of information and compliance of the order, but not for the purpose of using the same in filing of the appeal or writ petition, challenging the same award.3. This writ petition has been filed on 07.03.2006 by the opposite party No. 2/Insurance Company challenging the judgment/award dated 02.03.2004 passed by the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in Misc. Case No. 579 of 1993. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR224
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Though this Criminal Appeal has been listed for orders on the bail application, learned Counsel for the appellants consents for hearing and disposal of the Criminal Appeal, which is of the year 1988. Accordingly the appeal is heard, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows.2. Both the appellants have been convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 1987. Accused-appellant Pahali Prahallad Jena has been convicted for the offence under Section 304, Second Part of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and accused-appellant Sanat @ Chaku Jena has been convicted for the offence under Section 304/34, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. In addition to that, this appellant has also been convicted for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months with a direction to run both the sentences concurrent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT303; 2008(I)OLR15
ORDERS.C. Parija, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 26.02.1993 passed in G.R. Case No. 794 of 1992 by the S.D.J.M., Kendrapara, under which N.B.W. has been issued against him.3. Without going into the merits of the case, I direct that in the event the petitioner surrenders before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara, and moves an application for bail within two weeks from today in the aforesaid G.R. case, he shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned S.D.J.M. may deem just and proper.The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.Issue urgent certified copy as per rules....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT302; 2008(I)OLR16
ORDERN. Prusty, J.1. The petitioner is presently working as Lecturer in Geology in Adikabi Saraladas College, Tirtol in the district of Jagatsinghpur. It is submitted that his service has been approved and he is receiving his salary regularly. But unfortunately his arrear salary for the period from June 1986 to November 1987 and arrear differential Salary from December 1987 to September 1993 have not been disbursed thereby causing great prejudice to him.2. Heard. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.3. As it appears in this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed his arrear salary for the years 1986 to 1987 and 1987 to 1993. As such in the meantime about 21 years have passed from the date of his initial claim of 1986 and 14 years have passed from the date of his final claim of 1993. Law is well settled that even though there is no prescribed period of limitation for filing a writ petition, but the same sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(I)OLR131
P.K. Tripathy, J. 1. Heard argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows.2. Appellants were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 395/447/427, I.P.C. in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur, vide Sessions Trial No. 247/37 of 1988 arising out of I.C.C. Case No. 699 of 1981 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Jajpur. It is noted in the impugned judgment that the complainant and the accused persons are co-sharers and a suit for partition filed by the accused persons was decreed, and according to that decree the disputed area in the complaint petition fell to the share of the accused persons. In respect of that civil dispute ultimately the parties approached this Court in Second Appeal. Complainant states that with the allegation of demolition of a portion of the wall, a complaint was filed at an earlier stage in the year 1981, He again filed the complaint for the second time alleging that on 30.09.1981 accused persons forming an unlawful assembly, came...
Tag this Judgment!