Court : Orissa
L.MOHAPATRA, J & B,K,PATEL, J.W.P.(CRL) No.1397 OF 201.(Dt.21.03.2012) MD. RAJ.@ MD. AZIM ..Petitioner. .Vrs. STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Opp.Parties. NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 - (ACT No.65 OF 1980. S.3 (2). For Petitioner - M/s. Sangram Ku. Sahoo, G.Sahoo, D.P.Pattanaik & Miss A.Mohanty. For Respondent - Mr. S.D.Das (A.S.G.I.) (O.P.2). B.K. PATEL, J.In this petition for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, the petitioner has assailed legality of order of detention dated 16.10.2011 under Annexure-5 based on the grounds of detention dated 18.10.2011 issued by opposite party no.3 detaining authority and approved by opposite party no.1 State of Odisha under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the Act).2. Petitioners case is that on receipt of grounds of detention dated 18.10.2011 under Annexure-6, he submitted representations under Annexure-7 before the Advisory Board, the State Government and the Central Government on 23.10.2011. Orders of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
B.K.MISRA, J.W.P.(C) NO.33734 OF 201.(Dt.19.03.2012) SRIMATI BANANI PATTANAIK ..Petitioner .Vrs. STATE OF ORISSA ..Opp.Party COURT FEES ACT, 1870 (ACT NO.7 OF 1870. S.19- I For Petitioner - M/s. Sanatan Das, M.K.Sahu & S.K.Mohapatra. For Opp.Party Addl. Govt. Advocate. B.K.MISRA,J.The petitioner while presenting an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act seeking probate of the will prayed in Test Case No.10 of 2011 in the court of learned District Judge, Cuttack for exemption from payment of Court fees as duty money contending that she being a woman is exempted from payment of Court fees on the basis of the Government of Orissa Notification Vide S.R.O. No.575 of 1994 dated 7.6.1994. When such prayer was disallowed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack by the impugned order at Annexure-3, being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned order at Annexure-3 and to exempt her from payment of Court fees.2. Mr. Sanatan Das, le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2012AIR(NOC)194
B.N. Mahapatra, J. 1. The petitioner-State in this writ petition challenges the order dated 25.06.2010 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in ARBP No. 15 of 2008. 2. In course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the State stated that though in the present writ petition the order of the Sole Arbitrator relating to four applications filed before it under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is challenged, the State is only pressing the application relating to finishing of security (Annexure-4) and is not pressing other three applications. 3. The petitioners’ case in a nutshell is that opposite partycontractor was awarded with a contract for construction of Left Head Regulator of Jambhira Earth Dam vide Agreement No.13 LCB/95-96 executed on 22.02.1996. The total value of contract work awarded was Rs.4,38,31,520.70. The contract work was required to be completed within 24 consecutive calendar months. The date of commencement of the contract work was 25.01.1996 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
B.K. NAYAK, J. 1. Judgment-debtors in Execution Case No.4 of 2009 of the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Second Court, Cuttack have filed this writ application challenging the order dated 27.12.2010 passed by the Executing Court rejecting their objection to execution. 2. The decree holder-opposite parties filed T.S. No.6 of 1987 against the judgment-debtors and some of their predecessors-in-interest for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed on 24.06.1995 injuncting permanently the defendants-Judgment-debtors from interfering with the peaceful possession of the decree holders over the suit land. The decree holders filed Execution Case No.4 of 2009 for executing the decree by way of recovery of possession on the assertion that on 06.03.2009, the judgment-debtors interfered with their peaceful possession and forcibly encroached the suit land by dispossessing them. The judgment-debtors filed their objection to the execution petition contending that the decree being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. This writ petition has been filed for declaring Rule 12CC of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short, “CE Rules, 2002”), Rule 12AA of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for short, “CC Rules, 2004”) and Notification No.32/2006-CE (N.T.) dated 30.12.2006 (for short, “Notification”) issued by the Central Government ultra vires the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, “C.E. Act”) and the Constitution of India and for striking off those two Rules and theNotification. The further prayer of the petitioner is to set aside the impugned order No.38/2010-M (CX)/DA dated 21st July, 2010 passed under above notification dated 30.12.2006 (Annexure-1). 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition are that the Central Government by Notification No.30/2006-CE (N.T.) dated 30.12.2006 introduced Rule 12CC in CE Rules, 2002 enabling it to impose by notification certain restrictions a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. In this writ petition challenge has been made to the order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure-18) and order dated 25.08.2009 (Annexure-19) passed by opposite party no.2-Additional District Magistrate-Cum-Additional Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh. Under Annexure-18, opposite party No.2 has restored the membership of all the living members who constituted the Rourkela Technical Educational Society (in short, “Society”) in the year 1984- 85 vide Registration No.SGD-388/1984-85. Under Annexure-19 opposite party no.2 has approved the meeting of the Governing Body of the Society as per the proposal received from Sri Ramendra Kumar Pujari and others, but disapproved the resolution for removal of Sri P.K. Mohapatra from the primary membership of the Society on the ground that the allegations levelled against him require proper enquiry. The petitioners also seek for a declaratory relief that opposite party no.5- Sri R.K. Pujari, who is no longer the President of the Society as well a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. These petitions have been filed by the owners of the land acquired by the State Government in favour of the opposite party Anil Agarwal Foundation (hereinafter in short called as Foundation') for establishment of a University in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act' in short). The public interest litigation petitions have been filed both on behalf of the land owners who have no access to justice and also on behalf of the public of the locality of the lands whose public interest is affected by violating Rule of Law in acquiring vast tract of both Government, Temple and private lands in favour of the Foundation. They were listed and heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment. With a view to avoid repetition of pleadings and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we would briefly state the necessary fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. These petitions have been filed by the owners of the land acquired by the State Government in favor of the opposite party Anil Agarwal Foundation (hereinafter in short called as Foundation') for establishment of a University in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act' in short). The public interest litigation petitions have been filed both on behalf of the land owners who have no access to justice and also on behalf of the public of the locality of the lands whose public interest is affected by violating Rule of Law in acquiring vast tract of both Government, Temple and private lands in favour of the Foundation. They were listed and heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment. With a view to avoid repetition of pleadings and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we would briefly state the necessary fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. In this writ petition, petitioners have assailed the legality of order dated18.4.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bhubaneswar in Civil Revision Nos.26 of 2001 (12 of 2002) by which order dated 9.7.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in O.S. No.190 of 1984-I rejecting petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with 151 of the C.P.C. for amendment of written statement was confirmed. 2. Petitioners are legal heirs of defendant no.1 whereas opposite party nos.1 to 3 are legal heirs of the plaintiff and opposite party no.4 is the defendant no.2 in the suit. Government of Orissa in the General Administration Department has been impleaded as defendant no.3. 3. Defendant no.1 being the lessee of the Government in respect of the suit land entered into registered agreement for sale dated 6.1.1973 with the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.4,800/-. As per the agreement defendant no.1 received advance of Rs.2,900/-, handed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. In the present writ petition the petitioners herein claiming www 1 themselves to be the social workers and villagers of village Boden in the A District of Nuapada in the State of Orissa have prayed for quashing of i ' Notice No.248 dated 10.7.2010 issued by the Collector & Districtpetition and vacation of the interim orders in order to operate exclusive - privilege. I 2. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the _petitioners placed reliance Q. On the judgment of this Court in the case of Sarat Kumar Sahu 8:; another v. Collector, Cuttack and another, 73 (1992) CLT 834(para- 6) in order to support his contention that the "locality" as well as "local V area", needs to be declared in the public notice. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid judgment would have no application V to the present case, since an amendment was made) on 29.03.2005 to li the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1989, introducing Rule3Pi thereof. In (view of I such amendment to ...
Tag this Judgment!