Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-10-2010
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR976
S.C. Parija, J.1. These batch of four writ petitions are directed against the orders of reassessment for the years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Circle, Angul, disallowing the benefit of deferred payment of sales tax extended by the State Government under Industrial Policy Resolution, 1992, which had been allowed in the original orders of assessment and confirmed in appeals and demanding tax for the entire period.2. The facts of the case as detailed in the writ petition are that the Government of Orissa in the Industries Department formulated the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1992, (for short 'IPR-1992'), which was published in the Orissa Gazette on 1.8.1992. The policies outlined in IPR-1992 was intended to encourage the flow of investment and development of entrepreneurship in the State of Orissa. While financial assistance to the potential entrepreneurs in the form of subsidies and post-production benefits was envisaged, the main ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-16-2010
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR947
B.N. Mahapatra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order of confirmation of sale (Annexure-2), passed by the Principal Officer of the Co-operative Department in the district of Sarmbalpur and ARCS, Sambalpur Circle, under Section 103 (4) Schedule-1 of Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (Orissa Act II of 1963)(in short, the 'O.C.S. Act') in E.P. No. 674/1999-2000 and the entire proceedings taken by the opposite parties in connection with the said order.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition are that opposite party No. 6, Munikisan, had availed a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the O.P.-Bank to install a Flour Mill. The petitioners stood guarantors by mortgaging their properties described in the R.O.R. under Annexure-1. Opposite Party No. 6 could not repay the said loan as per the terms of the loan agreement. As the opposite party No. 6 defaulted to pay back the loan amount, opposite party No. 3, Asst. Registrar, Co-opera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-21-2010
1. This First Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 3.10.1981 and 5.11.1981 respectively passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in Title Suit No.142 of 1972.2. The plaintiff appellant-Nayana Sundari Bewa having died during pendency of the appeal has been substituted by her legal heirs, who are appellant nos.A.1/a to A.1/g. Defendant-respondent no.1 having died during pendency of this appeal, has been substituted by his legal heirs, i.e., R.1/a to R.1/i. Respondent nos.6 and 7 were expunged respectively by order no.36 dated 1.12.1989 and order no.53 dated 2.3.1989. The names of respondent nos.8 and 9 were deleted by order no.67 dated 13.1.1992. This appeal stood dismissed as against respondent no.9 vide order no.61 dated 8.4.1990.3. The present appellants 1/a to 1/g are all sons and daughters of plaintiff-Nayana Sundari Bewa, who filed the aforesaid suit bearing T.S.No.142/1972 for a declaration that D-1-Subash Chandra Behera, is not the adopted son of the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-16-2010
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
Decided on : Nov-16-2010
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!