Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-14-1974
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
Decided on : Mar-27-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Ori100
R.N. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company with its registered office at Calcutta. It has several factories at different places all over the country and one of them is at Hirakud in the district of Sambalpur under our territorial jurisdiction where smelting operation is carried. It entered into a contract in June, 1957, with the State Government of Orissa for purchase of electric power for this factory at Hirakud. When it required additional electric power after going into production, a subsequent contract was entered between those parties on the 11th of February, 1960. Article 3 of both the agreements (Annexures 1 and 2) provides that the agreements would remain valid for 25 years from 1957 with the consumer's option for a renewal.The Orissa State Electricity Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) was constituted under Electricity (Supply) Act, 54 of 1948 (hereafter referred to as the Act) with effect from 1st of March, 1961. The petitioner alleges that under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-24-1974
Reported in : 40(1974)CLT1119; [1975]35STC195(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner is engaged in mining limestone at Hatibari Lime Stone Quarry in the district of Sundargarh in the State of Orissa. It is registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and it holds a certificate of registration No. R. L. 206 for quarry only. The certificate of registration authorises the petitioner to mine limestone from the quarry. Under Rules 64 and 70 of the Mines Rules, 1955, the petitioner is to maintain a canteen for supplying articles of food to the employees engaged in the mine. There is also a similar clause in the agreement between the management and the trade union. The petitioner- accordingly runs a canteen which supplies food and drink to the employees working in the mine. The articles of association of the petitioner and the certificate of registration do not mention that the petitioner is to run a canteen. For the years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67, the petitioner was assessed under the Act. Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-29-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Ori90
S.K. Ray, J.1. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Its main business is manufacture of paper. It wanted to set up a Paper Mill at Chaudwar and needed land for that purpose. So it applied to the Government of Orissa for land and the latter agreed to acquire land for it and took recourse to the provisions of the Orissa Development of Industries Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act 18 of 19481 (hereinafter called the Act) for speedy acquisition of land by issuing a notification under Section 2 (c) of the Act declaring the project of setting up of a Paper Mill at Chaudwar to be included within, the expression 'Development of Industries', for the purpose of invoking the provisions of the Act. The Government in the Revenue Department then issued a Notification No. 5873-XVII-209/ 55-D dated the 19th August, 1955 under Section 3 (1) of the Act stating that 541.05 acres were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-02-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Ori78
Patra, J. 1. The petitioners are Advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and are members of the Athgarh Bar Association. Opposite party No. 2 Shri Achyutananda Das was enrolled as an Advocate by the Orissa State Bar Council (Opp. party No. 1) in 1969. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus or certiorari quashing the enrolment of opposite party No. 2 on the ground that he did not possess the necessary qualification for enrolment. 2. Opposite party No. 2 is not a graduate in law. It is also not disputed that he had not passed the Muktarship examination. But admittedly he was practising as a Mukhtar in the ex-State of Athgarh since the year 1945 and his name had been borne in the list of Mukhtars practising in that ex-State area till Athgarh was merged in the State of Orissa in 1948. Under the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950, certain enactments mention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jun-11-1974
Reported in : (1975)ILLJ100Ori
B.K. Patra, Acting C.J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order Annexure 1 dismissing the petitioner, an employee of the Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela from service and Annexure 2, the order passed by the presiding officer of the Industrial' Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act) approving such dismissal. The petitioner was a charge-man grade I under the Hindustan Steel. Limited, Rourkela and was workingin the Pipe Plant. On 19-11-1968, the order Annexure 1 was passed by the General Manager. Annexure 1 so far as material is quoted below.Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela, (Orissa) * * *Dismissal Order * * *Whereas the General Manager is personally satisfied that the continuance in employment of Mohammad Yasin, token No. 1007 charge-man, Pipe Plant is not expedient as it is against the interest of secu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-16-1974
Reported in : [1976]102ITR640(Orissa)
G. K. MISRA C. J. - Undisputed facts are that the assessee was granted registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the old Act'), till the assessment year 1961-62. It did not file its returns for the accounting year ending in Diwali on October 19, 1961, under section 139 (1) or (4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the new Act'). Best judgment assessment was completed under section 144 of the new Act for the assessment year 1962-63. The status of the assessee was determined as an 'unregistered firm'. The assessee filed a declaration under section 184(7) of the new Act in Form No. 12 on June 28, 1962. The due date for filing of return of income was June 30, 1962. No return was, however, filed. The new Act came into force on April 1, 1962.The assessees stand was that the firm being registered up to and including the assessment year 1961-62, it was required only to file a declaration in Form No. 12 under...
Tag this Judgment!