Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2008)2LLJ879Ori
B.P. Das, J.1. In these three writ applications the facts and the relief sought for being same and similar, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The challenge in these writ applications is to the order dated May 16, 2001 passed by the Managing Director, Orlssa Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (OSIC), O.P. 2, so far as it relates to the reversion of the petitioners, then working in the Head office/Raw Material Depots of the OSIC, to their parent organisation, i.e. Orissa Pump and Engineering Company Ltd. (OPEC).In the aforesaid impugned order dated May 16, 2001, the name of the petitioner in, O.J.C. No. 6878/2001, who was working as Senior Assistant, finds place at serial No. 7 whereas the names of the petitioner in O.J.C. Nos. 6887 and 6890 of 2001, who were working as Helpers, find place at serial Nos. 8 and 9-respectively.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ applications are as follows:The petitioner in O.J.C. No. 6878/2001-was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2752
1. Heard.2. Order of conviction under Section 302, IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar on accused-appellant in Sessions Trial Cue No, 44 of 1994 is under challenge,3. Prosecution case in inert is that en 21-11- 1993 in the afternoon accused picked up quarrel with his wife Lila (hereinafter referred to as deceased) and in that process dealt a slab blow to her belly by use of the knife (M.O.I.) and as result of that the deceased died. Neighbourers of the accused came to the spot and found that deceased was lying dead and accused was sitting holding the blood stained knife in his hand and to the query of some of the co-villagers (that includes P.W. 1) accused made extra judicial confession relating to the crime. When the villagers wanted to go near him, accused retaliated and because of that with the help of P.W. 4, a co-villager and other witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3) overpower the accused and tied him before proceeding to Police Station t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2009)23VST104(Orissa)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is a tax appeal filed against the revisional order dated June 17, 1998 passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, Cuttack confirming the suo motu revisional order dated February 2,1996 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack II range, Cuttack.3. M/s. Tribal Development Co-operatvie Corporation of Orissa Ltd., a Government of Orissa undertaking, is the appellant before us. The original assessment order dated February 28, 1995 was passed against the appellant under Section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. In the said assessment order, the assessing officer levied 'purchase tax' on the procurement of 'mohua flowers' by the appellant-Corporation computed on the basis of the 'royalty' amount payable by the assessee to the State for their right of collection, i.e., at Rs. 7.35 per quintal.4. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, in exercise of suo motu revisional powers, issued notice to the pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 107(2009)CLT269
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. All the three Writ Petitions arise from same or similar sets of facts and involve a common question of law. Hence, they were taken up together and are being disposed of by this Judgment.2 The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1954-55 and subsequent to that, the State Government acquired agricultural and homestead lands in the district of Sundargarh and urgency clause was made applicable for speedy acquisition under the provisions of Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the development of industrfes, namely, establishment of Rourkela Steel Plant and ancillary industries i.e. for the public purpose. In the meantime, the said act was repealed in the year 1994. However, Rourkela Steel Plant did not utilize all the lands acquired and surrendered about 4,000 acres of the unutilized pieces of land to the State Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(I)OLR352
B.S. Chauhan, C.J.1. The Puri Bar Association, Puri -a registered Association of the District Court Advocates, submitted a representation/ complaint dated 24.11.2008 by Fax through its Secretary addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Orissa High Court & other companion Judges of the Court, seeking transfer of the District Judge, Puri on the ground that he misbehaved with Advocate, namely, Shri Manoj Kumar Mohapatra, while conducting the proceedings peacefully in Election Misc. Case' No. 28 of 2007 before the said Court on 21st November, 2008. A requisition signed by large number of Advocates was submitted to the Secretary of the Bar Association and accordingly its President Shri Aditya Hrudaya Mishra, called a General Body meeting on 22.11.2008 which passed Resolution No. 25 raising the grievance against the District Judge, Puri and deciding to cease work in his Court and continue with the same till the District Judge is transferred from the District Judgeship, Puri. A copy of the R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori71; 2008(I)OLR916
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed in public interest by one Hemanta Rath, who describes himself to be a Social Activist and also claims to function as the President of Deaf and Dumb Society in the district of Khurda.2. In this petition a complaint is made that the State of Orissa is not implementing the provisions of Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter called 'PNDT Act') even though the said Act was brought into existence in 1996 and was amended in order to make its provisions more effective by the Amendment Act 14 of 2003. The said amendment has come into existence with effect from 14-2-2003.3. The said Public Interest Litigation was filed noticing series of news items in the newspapers and in the electronic media to the effect that there have been recovery of hundreds of skeletons, skulls, body parts of children from different parts of the State. The petitioner asserts that recovery of such huge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2007Ori81; 103(2007)CLT168; I(2007)DMC626
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. The Petitioners in the present writ petition have challenged the legality of the order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Marriage Officer, Balasore-Opp. party No. 4 in Proceeding No. 33 of 2006, refusing to register the marriage between the Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 under the Special Marriage Act., 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts as averred in the writ petition reveal that the Petitioner no. 2 is a French National and had been visiting Orissa on the basis of an education Visa since last two years for undergoing a course in Odissi Dance. During such stay at Bhubaneswar in Orissa, she developed acquaintance with the Petitioner No. 1 who is an Indian National which culminated in a proposal of marriage between them, with approval of their respective parents. It further transpires that the Petitioner no. 2 came to India in June, 2006 on the strength of a Tourist Visa issued by Opp. party no. 1, which was endorsed on her French Passport (Annexure-1). I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT14
1. Heard the parties and the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner.Petitioner as General Secretary, Petroleum Union (Eastern Branch) has filed this Writ Petition challenging to the order, Annexure 4 passed by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour Department. Relevant portion of Annexure-4 reads as follows:I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No. 8(9)/2001 dated 24.5.2001 from the ALC (Bhubaneswar (Orissa)) received in this Ministry on 06/06/2001 on the above mentioned subject and to say that, prima facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons:It is seen that none of the workmen involved in the dispute have completed 240 days of service during the proceeding 12 calender month prior to their date of termination'.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner with reference to the averments in paragraph-10 in the Writ Petition states that there is no quarrel on the number of days the workmen we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR831
L.K. Mishra, J.1. Even though the case has been listed for admission today, on the prayer and consent of learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.2. Heard learned Counsel for both sides.The petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No. 32 of 1991 of the Court of learned J.M.F.C, Khallikote for the offence under Sections 294/324/323/337/34 of I.P.C. On 9.4.2007 when the case was posted for judgment, the judgment could not be pronounced due to absence of all the accused persons including the present petitioner. Therefore, the judgment was kept in a sealed cover and N.B.W. was issued against the accused persons. On 27.8.2008 the present petitioner was arrested, produced before the Court and remanded to custody. A petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 353(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Cr.P.C') to pronounce the judgment. Another petition was filed to grant bail to him in the alternative. The learned Magistrate vide ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT131
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. The Petitioner, who is a Works Contractor, earlier working as such under Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 has filed this Writ Petition for quashing letter dated 04.12.1996 issued by Opposite Party No. 2 (Annexure 8), whereby the Petitioner was intimated that he has no outstanding dues pertaining to the work executed by him vide agreement Nc.21 F/2 of 19986-87 of erstwhile Project Division, Sambalpur and for a direction to the Opposite Party No. 2 to make payment of the Petitioner's arrear arid settled dues as per Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition.3. As it appears, earlier the Petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 10222 of 1996 and in compliance of Order Dtd 20/ 30.09.1996 all the papers relating to t...
Tag this Judgment!