Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2008)106CALLT192(NULL)
..... to the petitioner on the ground that the said boiler is located in orissa and was delivered in orissa and was being used in orissa. for the purpose of levying iax on the lease rental against the nil return filed by the petitioner, the assessing officer placed reliance on the explanation to section 2(g)(iv)(a)(i) of the orissa sales tax act, 1947 (hereinafter, 'ost act') which stipulates that the sale or purchase of goods ..... deal with question no. (iii) it is necessary to notice the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions and some judicial pronouncements.29. parliament enacted the constitution (forty-sixth amendment) act, 1982, by which clause (29a) was inserted in article 366. it reads: '(29a) 'tax on the sale or purchase of goods' includes-(a) a tax on the transfer, otherwise than ..... agreement imfa was referred to as the 'user', ijt was referred to as 'supplier i contractor' and the petitioner as the 'purchaser'.4. imfa wanted to instal a 90 ton per hour (tph) spreader stoker water tube boiler at its choudwar power plant of m/s. indian charge chrome ltd. (iccl), which is a sister concern of ..... the taxable event of transfer of right to use of the boiler with other equipments would be, on the delivery of the goods, which took place at choudwar in orissa. in support of his contention learnedljrounsel also relied on the judgment of hon'ble kerala high court in the case of first leasing company of india ltd. v. state of kerala (2007) 6 vst 805 and tried to distinguish the facts .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2009]148CompCas477(Orissa); [2009]96SCL347(NULL)
M.M. Das, J.1. Co. Pet. No. 28 of 2003 has been filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the opposite party, the Orissa Pump and Engineering Company Ltd. with a prayer for winding of the said company along with other ancillary prayers.2. The petitioner is the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd., which is a Government of Orissa undertaking. It is the case of the petitioner that the opposite party is a registered company under the Registrar of Companies, Orissa. The petitioner-company carries on business to promote and establish. companies and associations for the prosecution or execution of industrial undertakings, projects and industrial enterprises of any description whether of a private or public character which in the opinion of the petitioner-company would contribute to the industrial development of Orissa and to acquire and dispose of shares and interest in such companies or associations or undertakings on such terms and conditions as may be d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2397; 2008(I)OLR721
S.C. Parija, J.1. Whether a tenant whose tenancy has come to an end by efflux of time on expiry of his tenancy or has been terminated by notice and who continues in possession of the tenanted premises can be said to have committed the offence of criminal trespass under Section 441 I.P.C. (Orissa Amendment). This is the moot question which needs to be determined in the present case where cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 447/448 I.P.C. which is under challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. The case of the petitioner (accused) is that he was a tenant under the opposite party (complainant) of the premises consisting of four rooms situated on plot No. 1687 under Khata No. 38 in village Sundergram, measuring an area of Ac. 0.2.5 kadi. The said tenanted premises was given on rent to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 5007- and the petitioner was occupying the said premises as a tenant, on payment of monthly rent.3. In July, 1998, the wife ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT317; 2008(I)OLR953; (2008)17VST289(Orissa)
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Initially three S.J.Cs. being S.J.C. Nos. 10 of 1997, 8 of 1997 and 9 of 1997 were filed and subsequently renumbered as STREV Nos. 212, 214 and 216 of 2007 respectively. In view of the common questions of facts and law, all the three Revision Applications are heard and disposed of together.2. The following questions of law arising out of the order passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal on 8.12.1993 in Second Appeal Nos. 3345 to 3350 of 1991-92 have been referred to this Hon'ble High Court in terms of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 24.2.1997. The questions are:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right to held that tax is exigible for photographs as execution of works contract ?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal is perverse due to non-consideration and mis-consideration of facts and law and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside for re-hearing ?3. The mate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT556
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging an Order Dated 28th February, 2004, passed in ARBP No. 34 of 2002 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1996') whereby Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to dismiss the said petition. At that time anyone who was aggrieved by an order under Section 11 of the said Act 1996 could file a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Konkon Railway Corporation and Anr. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2002 BC 778.2. In the impugned order, which was passed by the Learned Judge under Section 11 of the Act 1996 the facts which have been noted are that the Petitioner dropped a tender for the work of 'Construction of Left Afflux Bundh FROM Rd 630-M to 1770-M of Rengali Irrigation Sub-Project W.R.C.P. Package No. 9'. The tender of the Petitioner was accepted and work order was issued in favo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT589; (2008)15VST484(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This batch of tax revision petitions filed by Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Kansbahal, Sundargarh, has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in refusing to accept the declarations in form '' and form 'C' and whether such refusal on the part of the Tribunal does not run contrary to the law laid down by the honourable Orissa High Court in Oriental Chemical Industries v. State of Orissa [1979] 44 STC 241.2. To bring out the true essence of the dispute, the following questions are formulated.(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the declaration forms produced before it?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee accepted the view taken by Revenue and changed its stand at a later stage regarding nature of the transaction as inter-State sale and produced necessary declaration forms, those should have been accept...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori161; 2008(4)ARBLR563(Orissa)
ORDERA.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the 'said Act') was filed on 10-12-2007 before this Court, On such petition being filed, this Court issued the notice on 14-12-2007 to the opposite parties. Pursuant to such notice, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and made submissions.3. The case, in the present petition is that the parties have entered into a share-purchase agreement for effecting sale of 50 lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10/- each in the company named M/s. Samleshwari Ferrometals Pvt. Ltd. and also the shares to be allotted on the pending applications in respect of the said Company. It was also stated that in terms of the agreement, the opposite parties are required to pay advance of Rs. 2 crores by 30-11-2006 and to pay the entire balance amount by 31-3-2007.4. However, disputes and differences arose between the parties. There is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009CriLJ193; 2008(II)OLR25
ORDERB.K. Patel, J.1. These two revisions are directed against the order dated 14.3.2007 passed in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jajpur in ST. Case No. 28/08/2006 by which the petitioners have been arrayed as accused persons and summoned to face trial under Section 302 I.P.C.2. Allegation in S.T. Case No. 28/08/2006 relates to commission of murder of deceased Prasanna Behera. On detection of the decomposed dead body of the deceased in an abandoned quarters meant for occupation of Junior Engineer of the Irrigation Office at Jenapur, an U.D. case was registered and enquired into. Subsequently, on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by S.l. of Police, Dharmasala P.S. Case No. 159 of 2005 was registered against unknown accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Bijaya Kumar Patra @ Atiri under Sections 341/342/ 325/302/201 I.P.C. By order dated 22.2.2006 passed i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori138
A.K. Parichha, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1981 confirming the judgment and decree of Subordinate Judge, Angul passed in Title Suit No. 1 of 1978-I.2. The present respondent as plaintiff filed the above noted suit pleading inter alia that the suit Schedule 'A1 property belonged to Mahi Sahu, who got it in the family partition. Mahi Sahu had two daughters; Surkita and Ukuli (D-1). Surkita died in 1959 leaving a minor son Kishori (plaintiff). Since Mahi and his wife Hema had no son and after the death of Surkita, Kishori was left uncared for, Mahi and Hema adopted Kishori as their son in the year 1966. Mahi died in 1969. Till his death he was in possession of the suit land. After his death, his wife Hema (D.2) and adopted son Kishori (plaintiff) possessed the suit land jointly. When the mother stood thus, defendant No. 1 in the year 1972 staked her claim over the suit land with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4472
ORDERPradip Mohanty, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna in S. C. No. 73/57 of 2006 permitting the prosecution to examine P.W. 3 under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after his cross-examination by the defence counsel.2. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 302/304-B/498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. After examination and cross-examination of P.W. 3, the P. P. filed a petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act on 15-3-2007 with a prayer to re-examine the said witness. The trial Court after considering the said petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act declared P.W. 3 hostile. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the prosecution and also by the defence.3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, which was filed after cross-examination of P.W. 3, is not permissible, since the defence elicited some new ...
Tag this Judgment!