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 : Nov-16-1989
Reported in : 69(1990)CLT132; (1990)IILLJ55Ori
A.K. Padhi, J: 1. Dispute arose in between the management of M/s Town Bidi Company, Cuttack and its workmen. The State Government under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') referred the matter to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court') for adjudication. The learned Labour Court giving due notice to both the sides entered into reference. The scope of the reference to the learned Labour Court is as follows:'Whether the refusal of employment to 19 workmen by the Management of M/s. Town Bidi Co., Cuttack with effect from 21st October, 1977 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled.'The case of the management was that the Bidi Rolling Unit under which the workmen were working was a separate establishment from M/s. Town Bidi Factory. The Town Bidi Rolling Unit was closed as it was not economically viab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-08-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Ori64
K.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The reversing judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration that the deed of settlement in respect of the suit land dated 20-6-1962 (Ext. A/5) executed by Baidehi in favour of the defendant-respondent was a fraudulent, inoperative and void document got executed on perpetration of undue influence, for partition, for rendition of accounts and mesne profits, have been assailed in this second appeal. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. The plaintiff alleged the following facts. Kalu Sahu hud two sons, namely, Gobinda and Nandakishore (defendant). Baidehi was his widow, Gobinda died and his son, the plaintiff was posthumously born. The plaintiff, however, instead of living in the ancestral home, lived with his maternal uncle, practically detached from his uncle, the defendant and grandmother Baidehi. The suit property as was held in First Appeal No. 69 of 1958, disposed of on 22-12-1961, belong...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-10-1989
Reported in : 1990ACJ631; AIR1990Ori74
L. Rath, J.1. The sole question for which this reference has been made to this Bench is whether in assessing compensation under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act and reaching the figure of the lump sum payable, the prevailing interest rate payable by the banks is available to be taken into consideration so as to limit the lump sum to the figure which if deposited in a bank would generate annual interest equal to the annual loss of dependency. In an earlier Division Bench decision reported in (1979) 47 Cut LT 368 (O.R.T. Company Ltd. v. Sibananda Patnaik) a view had been taken that a lump sum compensation cannot be determined on the basis of the interest rate of banks since the interest rate varies and there is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act to review the compensation once awarded on the basis of variance of rate of interest and further, the persons entitled to compensation should have control over the compensation amount since there is no justification to keep it out o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-01-1989
Reported in : II(1989)ACC574
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the employer against the judgment and order of the Second Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Sambalpur, awarding Rs. 55,650/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent for the permanent disability suffered by him in an accident, and the question that arises is as to whether the Tribunal could award a higher compensation than that awardable under the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. The facts: The respondent was a bus driver of the appellant- Corporation. According to the case of the respondent, on 6-11-1979 he was to take a bus of the appellant Corporation from Deogarh to Bamra. When he was asked to take the bus in question, he noticed some defects in the headlight, break system, etc. But be was directed to take that very bus. Unfortunately, the bus met with an accident near a bridge, where there was a stiff curve of 90 degrees as it went beyond the control due to the defective brake. As a result of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-07-1989
Reported in : [1990]78STC58(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. These three writ applications involve adjudication of common points and therefore, are disposed of by this judgment which shall cover all the three cases.2. The legality of the orders purported to have been passed under Section 13(4)(a), and the sustainability of penalties imposed under Section 13(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') fall for adjudication in these cases.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual antecedents are that the petitioner is a Government of India undertaking and a Corporation established under the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (Union Act 37 of 1964) (for short 'the Act 37 of 1964') and is registered as a dealer under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner is assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar Circle, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No. 1). It filed returns for the months January to March, 1973. Petitioner purchases paddy and converts it to rice for sale. Undisputedly, purchase of paddy...
Tag this Judgment!