Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT105
I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned Order Dated 10th of January, 2008 passed by the Orissa Information Commission, Bhubaneswar in Complaint Case No. 138 of 2006. By the said order, the State Information Commission imposed penalty of Rs. 19,250 on the Petitioner as Public Information Officer, who was Senior Assistant in the Office of the Commission of Commercial Tax, Orissa, Cuttack & directed that the amount will be deposited by Treasury challan under appropriate Head of Account of the State Budget within a period of 30 days failing which the amount shall be recovered from her salary in 10 (ten) equal consecutive monthly instalments commencing from the salary of February, 2008 payable in March, 2008 by the Public Authority & in case the Public Authority for adequate reasons is not able to recover the penalty amount from the Petitioner, the same can be realized from her as arrears of land revenue.2. The facts of the case are that Opposite Party ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT219
Sanju Panda, J.1. This writ application has been filed by the Petitioner for issuance of a direction to the Opp. Parties to allow the differential cost taking into account the prevailing market rates or in alternative to close the contract after settling & paying all the dues of the Petitioner & not to impose penalty for non-completion of work.2. The Petitioner, a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 which is engaged in construction business entered into a contract with Opposite Party No. 1 on 14.6.2007 for execution of the execute the work 'Modification to existing PPT Road from Gate No. 4 to Sandhakud Basti at Paradip Port'.3. The Opp. Parties directed the Petitioner to commence the work from 23.6.2007 & complete the same by 22.3.2008. The work order was allotted on 14.6.2007 vide Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. Though the date of commencement of the work was 23.6.2007, the Opp. Parties could not hand over the site to the Petitioner-Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT865; (2009)19VST372(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the action of Opposite Parties in levying penalty of Rs. 35,000/- under Section 73(10) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'OVAT Act') and Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- towards tax and penalty respectively under the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'OET Act') on the ground that the same were levied without passing any speaking order and affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.2. The short facts giving rise to this Writ Petition are that the Petitioner is a registered dealer under OVAT Act having TIN No. 21591107414. The departmental officer visited the place of business of the Petitioner on 02.02.2008 and on inspection found excess stock of kids and ladies wears worth Rs. 1.75 lakhs which were not accounted for in the books of account, register or document maintained in the course of business of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was served with a notice ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT276
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. M/s Gupta Cables Private Limited (now known as Gupta Power Infrastructure Limited) a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 Is the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition in which it has made prayer seeking quashing of the Order Dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure-8) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bhubaneswar Range, Bhubaneswar under Section 57(3) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004( hereinafter referred to as 'OVAT Act, 2004'), rejecting the refund application of the Petitioner dated 29.4.2009 & further seeking a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax Puri Range, Bhubaneswar to refund Rs. 6,56,77,059.97 paise as unadjusted input tax credit under Section 58(4) of the OVAT Act, 2004 read with Rule 66 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'OVAT Rules, 2005').2. Sri Sanjit Mohanty, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was assessed for the assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR245
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kandhamal-Boudh at Phulbani in ST. No. 61 of 1998 convicting the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Code and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.1998 at about 3.00 PM both the appellants and one Birendra Konhar dealt slaps as well as fist and kick blows to the deceased Rajeswar Konhar at Manindi hills as a result of which the deceased became unconscious. It is further alleged that at about 5.00 PM again appellant No. 1 Niranjan Konhar with the help of appellant No. 2 Bibachha Konhar assaulted the deceased by means of a tangia (axe). Due to such assault the deceased sustained severe injuries on his neck and died at the spot. Thereafter, the accused persons removed the dead-body from the spot and kept it concealed near a SALAPA tree. On the next day, i....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT422
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Prosecution case is that Sutan Dehury (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), on the date of occurrence, in the evening hours left the cattle in his master's house and went out. P.W. 1, the informant was his master. At about 7 p.m., Subash Chandra Mohanta (P.W. 1), Padmalochan Barik (P.W. 3) and Baya Singh (P.W. 9) came and informed P.W. 1 that accused committed murder of the deceased by means of Bamboo lathi. On hearing that P.W. 1 together with others rushed to the spot and they discovered that deceased was lying dead with injuries. Suni Singh, wife of the accused was also lying with injuries and the accused was standing there with a Bamboo lathi. On being asked by P.W. 1, he admitted to have assulted Suni Singh as well as the deceased because they were found in objectionable position. P.W. 1, therefore, lodged the F.I.R. Ext. 1 and set the law into motion. After routine investigation charge-sheet was submitted against accused, as noted above, for the offence u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2386; 2008(I)OLR556
1. Appellant challenges the order of conviction and sentence under Section 302, IPC recorded against him by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda on 16.03.2000 in Sessions Trial Case No. 79/54 of 1999.2. According to the allegation of the prosecution, on 14.04.1997, appellant committed murder of his wife Fulfuli (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). At about 6.00 P.M., P.W. 5 arrived at the spot in course of a stroll and gathered information about the occurrence from the accused and the neighbours and accordingly lodged the F.I.R., Ext. 9. On receipt of information, P.W. 10, the Investigating Officer undertook the investigation and on completion of the same, submitted charge-sheet. In course of investigation, as deposed by him he has made spot visit, made inquest over the dead body and forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination. He also seized the blood-stained cement and other incriminating materials from the spot. Such seizures include seizure of the wooden plank (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(II)OLR110
ORDERA.K. Samantaray, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties.3. This petition under Section 482. Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 175 of 1999 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Khandapara in respect of this petitioner. The fact giving rise to the petition is that on the F.I.R. lodged against this petitioner and 15 others, and Khandapara P.S. Case No. 92 of 1999 was registered and subsequently after investigation by the I.O. the I.O. submitted charge sheet excluding this petitioner and two others. But after submission of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate without any valid ground and without any material on record, took cognizance of the offences and directed issue of process against this petitioner and two others arraying them as the accused persons in the said Q....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(I)OLR935
ORDERA.K. Parichha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as a delinquent in CMC No. 467 of 2007 in the court of learned Executive Magistrate, Criminal Court, Baripada, has filed this petition challenging the order initiating the proceeding under Section 107, Cr.P.C. against her basically on the plea that the Executive Magistrate before initiating the proceeding and issuing show cause notice did not undertake any inquiry for his satisfaction and that relying only on the police report he initiated the proceeding and issued show cause notice.2. Mr. Bhoi, learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the case of Chandramani Nayak v. State : 1991(II)OLR111 reiterates the stand of the petitioner.3. Mr. Pradhan, learned Counsel for opposite parties, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and notice Annexure-1 and 2.4. The order of the Executive Magistrate dated 14.08.2007 initiating the proceeding under Section 107, Cr.P.C. reveal that on pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007CriLJ4096
1. Leave being granted on 21-8-1988, the Government Appeal is taken up for consideration against the judgment of acquittal in S.T. Case No. 16/73 of 1986- 85.2. Eighteen accused persons charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 232, 326, 302/34, I. P.C. stood their trial on the allegation that on 13-10-1984 at about 1.00 pm to 1.30 pm, accused persons forming unlawful assembly attacked and assaulted Laxmidhar Rout (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and also caused injury to Gopal Rout (P. W. 7) and Narayan Rout (P. W. 6). After the occurrence, the deceased and the injured persons were taken to Bhadrak Hospital at about 8.30 p. m. Laxmidhar succumbed to the injury. In course of investigation, on the basis of the F. I. R. Ext. 13, the Investigating Officer (P. W. 11) submitted charge-sheet because of overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence in support of the aforesaid allegations. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as thirteen...
Tag this Judgment!