Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-23-1989
Reported in : 67(1989)CLT601; 1989(42)ELT552(Ori)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, levy of duty on Electricity under Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by Section 36 of Finance Act 1978 is assailed by the petitioner, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913.2. Petitioner carries on the business of manufacture of paper and paper board, for which it has a factory at Brajarajnagar. It has also a plant to manufacture Caustic Soda which is required to be used for the production of paper. Electricity is necessary for the purpose of running the factories. For that purpose, petitioner has a power plant to generate electricity. It also gets supply of electricity from the Orissa State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') on payment of charges.3. After the Act was amended in 1978, providing for levy of duty on electricity by including item 11E to the first schedule, the Board demanded additional amount fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-08-1989
Reported in : (1992)ILLJ397Ori
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In these writ petitions a large number of employees of various categories serving under opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and their service associations have challenged the decision of opposite party No. 1 for retrenchment of staff considered to be excess, as well as the orders of retrenchment. As common questions of fact and law are involved and arise for consideration, with the consent of the counsel for the parties they were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.2. Facts common in all the writ petitions are that the petitioners are employees of the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (opposite party No. 1) (for short 'the Corporation') serving in various categories and were mostly appointed for efficiency of public transport in the State after the modified Banner Scheme was introduced in the year 1983. According to this scheme which was operated in six districts of the State, namely, Cuttack, Balasore, Mayurbhanj, Ganjam, Puri and Phulbani, the owner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-19-1989
Reported in : [1990]76STC447(Orissa)
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioners have filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1979 (Orissa Act 24 of 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the 'amending Act') ultra vires the Constitution ; to direct by a writ of mandamus the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa and his subordinates not to enforce, execute and administer the provisions of the said Act in respect of the petitioners and for other consequential reliefs.The petitioner No. 1 is the Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited, an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, and petitioner No. 2 is one Paresh Chandra Dash, Manager of the Mill No. 3 at Choudwar and the Principal officer of petitioner No. 1. Of the eighteen opposite parties, the State of Orissa represented by the Secretary in the Finance Department, Secretary to the State Government in the Law Department and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-23-1989
Reported in : II(1990)DMC271
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner and pro forma opposite party No. 2 are accused in a case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short the 'Act') and have challenged the order of cognizance dated 6-2-1985 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar.2. Prosecution case, which is a very unfortunate one, is narrated below. The marriage negotiation between Sunjukta, an educated young girl, with the petitioner who was serving as Judicial Magistrate at Bhubaneswar, was started by some negotiators in January, 1982. During negotiation, on behalf of the petitioner and pro forma opposite party No. 2, demand of dowry of cash of Rs. 35,000/- and costly articles, such as, television, H.M.T. watch, refrigerator, 15 Tolas of gold ornaments and a piece of land at Bhubaneswar, was made. The parents Sanjukta willy-nilly agreed for giving the dowry and as a matter of fact, on 10-2-1982 at the time of Nirbandha ceremony, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid by her ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-07-1989
Reported in : 69(1990)CLT102; I(1990)DMC281
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.2. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant were married on 2-3-1969 and the marriage was duly consumated and they were living as husband and wife, but they did not have any issue. They continued as such till 1973 when the defendant began to illtreat the plaintiff mostly on account of the fact that no child was born. The plaintiff was driven out of the husband's house in September, 1973. She then sent a registered notice on 8-3-1974 but the defendant denied the allegations made in the notice. In reply to the registered notice, the defendant alleged that there has been no marriage between the plaintiff and defendant. On these allegations, the suit was filed for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.3. The defendant in his written statement denied all the allegations made in the plaint. According to the defence case, the defendant had marri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-23-1989
Reported in : 69(1990)CLT440; 1990CriLJ2626
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner and pro forma opposite party No. 2 are accused in a case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short the 'Act') and have challenged the order of cognizance dated 6-2-1985 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar.2. Prosecution case, which is a very unfortunate one, is narrated below. The marriage negotiation between Sanjukta, an educated young girl, with the petitioner who was serving as Judicial Magistrate at Bhubaneswar, was started by some negotiators in January, 1982. During negotiation, on behalf of the petitioner and pro forma opposite party No. 2 demand of dowry of cash of Rupees 35,000/- and costly articles, such as, television, H.M.T. watch, refrigerator, 15 Tolas of gold ornaments and a piece of land at Bhubaneswar, was made. The parents of Sanjukta willy-nilly agreed for giving the dowry and as a matter of fact, on 10-2-1982 at the time of Nirbandha ceremony, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-07-1989
Reported in : 69(1990)CLT220; 1990CriLJ1193
ORDERJ. Das, J.1. This criminal revision arises out of the appellate judgment dated 30-7-1983 passed by Sri G. S. Patnaik, Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaypore upholding the conviction and sentence dated 8-4-1982 passed by Sri S. Nayak, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bissam Cuttack, in II (c) C.C. 14 of 1980 convicting the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for two months and directing that the seized paddy be confiscated.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated is that on 22-2-1980 Sri P. N. Misra (P.W. 3), the Supply Supervisor along with Sri V. Rama Rao Patnaik (P.W. 4) attached to S.D.O. Office detained the truck bearing registration No. CRR 2262 and checked the same, P.Ws. 3 and 4 found that the accused was taking 120 bags of paddy weighing 93 quintals 99 Kgs. and 700 grams in the said truck. The accused-petitioner could not produce any authority for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-24-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Ori51; 68(1989)CLT801
L. Rath, J.1. These two petitions at the instance of the same petitioner in essence raise the identical question for decision and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner was the subscriber of four telephones and one telex, the telephone numbers being 51734, 53865 and 55061 in its office and 55482 at the residence of its Managing Director and the telex having the number 0675-267. The facts of O.J.C. No. 2310/89 which are not disputed and have also been supplemented by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, are that the petitioner came before this Court earlier in O.J.C. No. 2140/83 challenging the notice of disconnection issued on 30-6-88 by the Telecom. District Engineer, Department of Telecommunications, Bhubaneswar for outstanding dues as against telephone numbers 53865 and 51734. The telephones were disconnected and protest having been raised by the petitioner to the bills alleging excess metering, the department instituted an enquiry. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-01-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Ori42
V. Gopalaswamy, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 Bhabagrahi Panigrahi is the Managing Director of M/s. Premier Industrial Salts and Chemicals (Pvt.) Limited (petitioner No. 2), a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Company') carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of Sodium Dichromate by establishing a plant at Jagatpur in Cuttack district. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this writ application Under Article 236 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of opposite party No. 2, the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), in taking over the possession of the Industrial Concern of the petitioner-Company with the right to sell in exercise of its power under Section 29 of the State Financial-Corporation Act, 1951-(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in pursuance of the notice under Annexure-1 and handing over the possession of the same to the opposite party No. 3 Ms. Kaling...
Tag this Judgment!