Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-14-2008
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT442; (2008)15VST587(Orissa)
I. Mahanty, J.1. The Petitioner is Government of Orissa Undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged, inter alia, in the business of generation of power and for such purpose, it has established Thermal Power Plants for operation and maintenance of the same within the State of Orissa.2. The Petitioner-Company applied for registration as a dealer both under the O.S.T, Act and the C.S.T. Act to the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar and was granted with C.S.T. registration Certificate on 17.3.1987 under Section 7(2) of the C.S.T. Act and the following endorsement was made on the registration certificate granted to the Petitioner under the C.S.T. Act and 'all machineries and equipments associated with construction operation and maintenance of large Thermal Power Station, Pumps, Compressors, earth moving Machineries, Turbine generators, Transformers, Switch gears and Laboratory equipments'.3. After the aforesaid certificate was granted to the Petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-16-2008
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT545; (2008)15VST497(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the assessment order dated February 19, 2007 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-1 East Circle (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessing officer') under Rule 12(8) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST(O) Rules') for the assessment year 2001-02. By the impugned order, the assessing officer has enhanced the gross turnover and net taxable turnover of the petitioner by making addition to the inter-State sale. An extra demand of Rs. 2,99,05,07,587 which includes penalty of Rs. 1,79,43,04,552 has been raised in the said order.2. The relevant facts which give rise to this writ petition are as follows.3. The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking and a Government Company incorporated under the provisions of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at G-9 Ali Yaver Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 and Orissa State Office at 304, Bho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jun-20-2008
Reported in : AIR2008Ori187
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. The dispute in the present Writ Petition is with regard to succession to the office of the hereditary trustee of Gobardhan Math, Puri. The said Math is a public religious endowment governed under the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Admittedly Jagatguru Shankaracharya Niranjan Dev Tirthaswamy was the last hereditary trustee of Gobardhan Math. During his lifetime he had voluntarily relinquished his office and had intimated the said fact in writing to the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, opposite party No. 2, by registered post. While matter stood thus, Shri Nischalananda Saraswati Dev Tirthaswami claiming to be the successor of late hereditary trustee Jagatguru Shankaracharya Niranjan Dev Tirthaswami filed an application under Section 36 read with Section 39 of the Act before the Commissioner of Endowments to recognise him as the hereditary trustee of the Math. The said application was regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-22-2008
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR573
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in T.S. No. 213 of 1998, have filed this writ application seeking to challenge the order dated 2.11.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Puri in the said suit whereby three petitions filed by the petitioners on 20.4.2005; one under Order 22, Rule-4 read with Section 151 C.P.C., another for setting aside abatement and the third one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in taking steps for substitution, were rejected.2. From the pleadings, it is apparent that the petitioners have filed T.S. No. 213 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Puri praying, inter alia, for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit schedule properties. It appears that Defendant No. 1-Chintamani Mohapatra died on 25.9.99 after his appearance in the suit. The plaintiff-petitioners had filed a petition under Order 1, Rule-10 CPC for impleading the legal heirs of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-22-2008
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT725
Sanju Panda, J.1. In this appeal the Appellant has challenged the Order Dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 513 of 2007 arising out of C.S. No. 658 of 2007 whereby the Court below has rejected the application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Appellant.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The Appellant as Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that Defendant No. 4, M/s Swift Travellers, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar was not technically qualified to be awarded with the tender for running the pre-paid taxi counter at Biju Pattnaik Airport, Bhubaneswar and the tender awarded in favour of Defendant No. 4 may be void. In the suit, a further declaration was prayed for that the Plaintiff-Union and its members cannot be evicted by Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 from the taxi stand and pre-paid taxi counter forcibly and or without due process of law. The Plaintiff asserted that Defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-24-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Ori46; 2008(II)OLR725:AIR2009Orissa46
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment of August 6, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 386 of 2007 is assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal. In the FAO an order of September 9, 2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, FTC-Ill, Bhubaneswar in Interim Application No. 12 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 498 of 2004 appointing a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'CPC) was assailed.2. The question of maintainability of the LPA against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court was raised in course of hearing of the LPA. It was pointed out at the Bar that there had been two sets of directly conflicting judgments of Division Benches of this Court, inasmuch as in the case of V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patl and Anr. 2006 (II) OLR 349, a Division Bench had taken the view that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in view of amendment of Section 100-A CPC against the judgment/order of a learned Single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-27-2008
Reported in : 2009(I)OLR400
Sanju Panda, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 22.5.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda in ARB. (P) No. 576 of 2007 filed by the present respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, 'the Act').2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:On or about 1 st April, 1999 an agreement was executed between the appellant (Sunita Mohapatra) and the respondent (Suresh Dhanuka) to carry on business in the name and style of 'Abhilasha'. Sunita Mohapatra carries on business in the name and style of 'Natureprc Biocare Inc.' as the sole proprietress thereof. The said agreement was for a period of five years from 1st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2004. It was further extended on 1st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2009 by mutual consent of both the parties. As per the said agreement, it was agreed that the respondent would have sole marketing and distribution rights of the products manufactured by the appellant. The respondent would not take up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-19-2008
Reported in : (2009)21VST426(Orissa)
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1 This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature-of mandamus directing opposite party No. 1, the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela II Circle, Panposh, Rourkela, to refund a sum of Rs. 98,262 along with interest at 24 per cent per annum from the date of application dated October 1, 2002 (annexure 5) till the date of refund and to quash the order dated September 13, 2007 passed by opposite party No. 1 under annexure 1 rejecting the petitioner's application dated October 1, 2002 for refund of Rs. 91,512 for the year 1996-97 on the ground that the said order has been passed arbitrarily and in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the OST Act').2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 240, 2nd Floor, 254-A Park Street, Kolkata 16...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-17-2008
Reported in : 107(2009)CLT277
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This OCRMC has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 971 for holding the Opposite Party guilty of 'civil contempt' and punishing him for alleged violation and deliberate disobedience by him of order passed by this Court on March 11, 1998 in Civil Revision No. 333 of 1997.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are as follows:In the year 1993 the Petitioner entered into a contract with the Opposite Party for purchasing a Tempo Trax vehicle bearing registration number OLR-07-A-3301 to be financed by the latter. After payment of the price delivery of the vehicle was given to the Petitioner. In consonance with the terms of contract the Opposite Party paid a portion of the price of the vehicle and the rest was paid by the Petitioner.3. It is averred in this OCRMC petition that the Petitioner paid certain amounts to the dealer of the vehicle after consultation with the Opposite Party. While matter stood thus certain misunderstanding crept in regarding p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-23-2008
Reported in : (2009)107CALLT381(NULL)
B.P. Das, J.1. The Petitioner, who was working as a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' hereinafter) in its Jharsuguda Branch Office under Sambalpur Division, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the Order Dated 30.3.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority awarding on him the penalty of removal from service, vide Annexure-9, as well as the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority, i.e. the Chairman of the Corporation, affirming the award of penalty, vide Annexures 11 and 12 respectively,2. Shortly stated, the facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that the Petitioner on being appointed joined the Corporation on 9.11.1992 as an Apprentice Development Officer. In August, 1993 he was placed on probation and on completion of the probation period, he was confirmed. While working as such at Jharsuguda Branch Office under Sambalpur Division of the Corporation, the Disciplinary Authority,T.e., the Senior Di...
Tag this Judgment!