Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2006(I)OLR568
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Relief claimed in all the writ applications being similar, on the request of the learned Counsel appearing parties, all the cases were taken together for hearing. The petitioners in all the writ applications were employees of erstwhile Bhaskar Textile Mills Limited working in different capacities. In these writ applications they challenge the order dated 02.01.2002 issued by the Department of Public Enterprises, Government of Orissa fixing the cut-off date 31.5.1998 for the purpose of computation of duties under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme instead of 31.5.2001 as a result of which, the petitioners have been deprived of salaries/wages for the period from June, 1998 to May, 2001. They also pray for deposit of Provident Fund shares from 1991 to 2001.2. The case of the petitioners is that erstwhile Bhaskar Textile Mills Limited was established in the year 1965 and at a subsequent stage the production capacity was increased. 2500 (Two thousand five hundred) workers we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1997(II)OLR420
P.C. Naik, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.2.1992 (Annexure-1) passed by Opp. Party No. 2 attaching the Bank Account of the Petitioner company towards payment of arrear taxes of the erstwhile Bhaskar Textile Mills.2. The Bhaskar Textile Mills was a private industry, which on account of mis-management had to be closed down. In order to reopen the mill and for rehabilitation of the workers, the State Legislature enacted Bhaskar Textile Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1986 (Act 4 of 1988) hereinafter referred to as 'The Acquisition Act' providing for acquisition and transfer of the Bhaskar Textile Mills Ltd., Jharsuguda. This Act received the assent of the President on 7th March 1986 and, by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 1, came into effect retrospectively from 13th August, 1985. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act provides for right of the owner in respect of the tex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------Ajit Kumar Routray Pravash Ku. Sahoo BiNo.Ku. Sahoo Braja Kishore Sahoo Nrusingha Ch. Routray Pravash Kumar Sahoo Ajit Kumar Routray Avijit Panda W.P.(C) No.8084 of 2013 W.P.(C) No.8082 of 2013 W.P.(C) No.9531 of 2013 W.P.(C) No.9533 of 2013 W.P.(C) No.9549 of 2013 W.P.(C) No.7110 of 2013 W.P.(C) No.7111 of 2013 M/s Ramakanta Mohanty, D.Mohanty, S.Mohanty, D.Varadwaj, A.Mohanty, S.Mohanty, P. Jena & A.K.Das W.P.(C) No.9378 of 2013 M/s Gopal. Kr. Mohanty, P.K.Panda, D.Mishra & N.K.Khan Pradeepta Kumar Nath Yogesh Sahu & Ors. MaNo.Ku. Sahoo Bimala Dalabehera Aruna K. Sahoo and Another W.P.(C) No.8912 of 2013 W.P.(C) No.9558 of 2013 W.P.(C) No.10085 of 2013 W.P.(C) No.10731 of 2013 W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2013 M/s Narasingh Patra, A.K.Patra & B.Shadangi Gitanjali Sahoo Bipin Bihari Nayak W.P.(C)No.6351 of 2013 W.P.(C)No.10690 of 2013 M/s Kali Pr. Mishra, S.Mohapatra, T.P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder urging various facts and legal grounds.2. Brief facts in nutshell are stated as under: The petitioner in each of the writ petitions is accused of offence punishable under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Originally each one of the petitioners case was pending either in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance at Bhubaneswar or Cuttack or other places in the State. After establishment of the Special Courts pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government establishing Special Courts, the case of the petitioners were transferred to the respective Special Judge of the Special Courts established under the Orissa Special Courts Act.3. The Orissa Special Courts Act has been passed by the Orissa Legislative Assembly and the same has been assented to by the President of India on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 108(2009)CLT519
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. We have jointly heard FA No. 10 of 2001 & three other Writ Petitions i.e. W.P. 7437 of 2008, W.P. 7962 of 2008 & 8874 of 2008. The details of the suit against the decree of which FA had arisen is given below. The Plaintiffs in that suit are the sons of the person called Nidhi Sethi. In order to protect the decree, they have filed W.P. 7962 of 2008 ft W.P. 8874 of 2008. Their prayer in those Writ Petitions are that as they are entitled to the suit land, the allotment of the same or part of it by the State Govt. in favour of the Petitioner in W.P. 7437 of 2008 is illegal that it is to be cancelled; that the attempt made thereon to make construction is to be prevented & the allotment itself is to be quashed. On the contrary, the Petitioner in W.P. 7434 of 2008 prayed that the land never belonged to the Petitioners in the other Writ Petitions who are plaintiffs in the suit, that the settlement records in their favour shall be quashed as illegal & direction shall be ...
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 : AIR2002Ori156
ORDERP.K. Mohanty, J.1. In both the writ applications, the action of the Orissa State Financial Corporation in auctioning M/s Lords Food Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. and settling the same in favour of opp. Party No. 5, Tarakanta Mohapatra being under challenge and common question of fact and law being involved, on the consent and on agreement of the learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions were heard analogously and is being disposed of by this common order.2. O. J. C. No. 13332 of 1999 has been filed by M/s Lords Food Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. represented through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dr. Durga Prasad Sahoo (Petitioner No.2). In O. J. C. No. 13385 of 1999, Shree Jagannath Education Trust, represented by its Chairman is the petitioner, which was an auction bidder in the auction conducted on 14-10-1999 by the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter called as 'O.S.F.C.') of the defaulting a bakery unit. Lords Food Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 78(1994)CLT851; 1994(I)OLR429
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ application is whether 'the opp. parties have made any unequivocal promise to the petitioner to grant some amount as subsidy pursuant to which the petitioner started the industry and invested a huge sum and, therefore, the opp. parties are bound by the promise held out to the petitioner and are not entitled to back out from the promise on the ground that the Government of India itself reduced the amount of subsidy. In other words, whether the principle of promissory estoppel can at all be applied and could be enforced by way of a writ of mandamus.2. The short compass within which the aforesaid principle arises for determination is that the Government of Orissa has been announcing several incentives in the form of tax concession as well as subsidy to those entrepreneurs who decide to set up industries within the State of Orissa and those are called the Industrial Policies. The industrial policies of the State an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1994CriLJ370
B.N. Dash, J.1. These two revisions are directed against the judgment of the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur upholding the conviction and sentence passed under Section 409 read, with Section 34, I.P.C. against both the accused-petitioners and also under Section 408, I.P.C. against the accused-petitioner V. Tyagarajan, Since both the revisions have been tiled against the same judgment and as some of the points involved for determination are identical, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The undisputed facts which fall within a small compass are stated as under :-- The accused-petitioner Banwarilal Agarwal and his son Binod Kumar Agarwal (another accused since acquitted) carry on business in nylon fishing net twine at Big Bazar, Berhampur town in the name and style of 'Susil Kumar Bijay Kumar' and of them Binod placed order for supply of 1200 kg. of nylon fishing net twines with Shri Ram Fibere Limited, Calcutta on January 31, 1984,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1993CriLJ442; 1992(II)OLR395
A. Pasayat, J.1. Even before the ink in certain judgments has become dry, divergence of view has surfaced and doubt regarding their correctness has arisen, relating to certain provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though only one question was referred to the Full Bench for adjudication, members of the Bar pleaded that several other questions need a fresh look, and therefore, we have primarily considered the following questions :(1) Whether a Court of Session can, during transitional period as provided in Section 36-D of the Act take cognisance of an offence under the Act as a Court of original jurisdiction without the accused being committed to it for trial ?(2) Whether a remand beyond a period of fifteen days as indicated in Section 36-A(1)(b) is permissible ?(3) Whether the conditions in Section 37 of the Act relating to giant of bail override the effect of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Pro...
Tag this Judgment!