Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2004Ori58
ORDER1. In this writ petition filed by the judgment-debtor, the order of the District Court in revision rejecting the objection raised by the judgment-debtor to the executability of the decree is challenged. Since what is challenged is the decision of the Executing Court as modified by the Revisional Court, this proceeding can be understood only as one initiated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot apply and a writ of certiorari cannot issue to a Civil Court as has been held by the Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1.2. One Moti Dei, mother of the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of an extent of land in favour of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 said to be the sons of her brother. The land agreed to be transferred was a piece of urban land for the consideration referred to in the agreement. Before entering into that agreement Moti Dei had filed a return under Section 6(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(II)OLR713
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner claims the benefit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 which was adopted vide resolution passed on 5.4.2002 in the State Legislature and published in the Extraordinary issue of Orissa Gazette bearing No. 574 dated 27.4.2002.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of land measuring Ac. 1.606 appertaining to Plot Nos. 568, 557, 564, 567, 800 in Khata Nos. 193, 73,103, 556 of Mouza Gandarpur and Sutahat within the Cuttack Urban Agglomeration. Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as 'U.L.C.Act') he submitted his return in respect of the said land, which was registered as U.L.C.Case No. 44 of 1976. The competent authority allowed the Ceiling Unit measuring Ac. 0.0504 decimals and the petitioner was directed to surrender the rest of the area and the notification under Section 10(1) of the U.L.C. Act was published on 28.5.1982 inviting objection to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2006(II)OLR423
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the guarantors to the loanee who obtained loan from the State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, Industrial Estate Branch (hereinafter referred to as the 'SBI'). The petitioners are also erstwhile Managing Director and Director of M/s. East End Engineers (P) Ltd., which is a Company under the Companies Act and the loanee from the Bank.2. The material facts of the case are the said Company, namely, M/s. East End Engineers (P) Ltd. took loans from SBI after executing security documents and creating equitable mortgage of immovable property supported by the guarantee of the petitioners. In order to realise its loans, SBI filed on 28.7.1993 a suit in the Civil Court being TMS No. 207 of 1993. Thereafter the said company was declared sick and under the provisions of SICA the BIFR made a recommendation under Section 20 of SICA for its winding up. On the basis of such recommendation by the BIFR, winding up proceeding commenced before the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2008Ori103; 106(2008)CLT126; [2009]148CompCas817(Orissa); 2008(I)OLR702
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Noble Aqua Private Ltd.- petitioner No. 1, who claims to be a company registered under the Companies Act and petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 3 is the wife of petitioner No. 2, the Managing Director of the petitioner-company.2. The petitioners are challenging a notice dated 7.4.2007 ssued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security on Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'Securitisation Act'). The basic challenge in the writ petition is that the said notice is in contravention of provision of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA').The petitioners' case is that it was engaged in the export business of Marine Food Products along with processing and manufacturing of marine food products since 1995. The company was earning profit till 2002-03. But in view ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1993Ori295
1. The petitioner has been treated as a ceiling surplus holder under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and challenges the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue as well as the competent authority under the Act.2. The petitioner's case, in brief, is that his father late M. Suba Rao died leaving behind three sons and three daughters and in a family partition, the properties of the joint family consisting of M. Suba Rao and his children were divided. The family partition is of the year 1951 and the registered partition deed is dated 27-3-1951. But they had a piece of land in mouza Ramgarh measuring Ac 4.928 decimals which was kept joint. After the Act came into force on 17-2-1976, the petitioner submitted a return indicating therein that his residential land together with the building standing thereon in mouza Patapur measures Ac.0.097 decimals and he had acquired another piece of vacant land adjacent to his house measuring Ac.0.299 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1982Ori236; 54(1982)CLT111
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge the order of the Competent Authority in a proceeding under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No. 33 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the appellate decision rendered by the Member, Board of Revenue against the order of the Competent Authority.2. The short facts relevant for the matter are these:--The petitioner owns a vacant land within the Cuttack municipal area. Cut-tack has been notified as an urban agglomeration within category 'D' as would appear from the Schedule appended to the Act. Under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act, the ceiling limit is 2000 square metres.The petitioner filed a voluntary statement under Section 6 of the Act before the Competent Authority and Case No. 8 of 1978 was registered by the Competent Authority on the basis of such statement. Though the petitioner had filed a statement, at the time of hearing he took the stand that he was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 62(1986)CLT116; 1986(II)OLR31
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the adjudication of the. authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, treating him and his brother as a 'body of individuals' and determining the ceiling area and the surplus land on that basis2. Ramahari Parida admittedly died in 1950 leaving behind the petitioner Surendra and Debendra, In a suo motu proceeding under Chapter IV of the Orissa land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'), the contention of the brothers that there was a partition was negatived, as the document produced by them was not a registered one and the ceiling area and surplus lands were determined treating them as a body of individuals'. Being unsuccessful in appeal and revision, they have moved this Court for a certiurari-3. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the authorities have gone wrong 1n negativing the contentions of the petitioner on the ground that the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : III(2005)BC143; 99(2005)CLT502; [2006]133CompCas924(Orissa); [2005]64SCL288(NULL)
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, J.1. This is an application filed by the employees of M/s. Elconmet Ltd. (for short, 'the Company') in Company Act No. 17 of 2001 to declare the sale of the assets of the said Company as null and void.2. The facts briefly are that the Company made a reference to the B.I.F.R. under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, the 'SICA'). The reference was dismissed as non-maintainable by the B.I.F.R. on 30.4.1991, the Company preferred an appeal before the appellate authority for industrial and financial reconstruction and by Order dated 12.12.1991, the said appellate authority remanded the case back to the B.I.F.R. After all attempts to rehabilitate the Company failed, the B.I.F.R. decided in its proceedings held on 19.2.2001 that it is just and equitable in the public interest to wind up the Company and appointed the IPICOL (Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Ltd.) as operating agency in terms of S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 73(1992)CLT409; 1992(I)OLR462
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), annexed as Annexure-2 and the order of the appellate authority, annexed as Annexure-3, are being challenged in this writ application by the petitioner who happens to be the legal representative of the surplus holder late Moti Dei.Their Lordships, after rejecting other contentions of petitioner as question of facts concluded by competent authority, found as follows : 5. So far as the lands alleged to have been covered by the agricultural lands, the competent authority has held that the lands are covered in the residential zone of the Master Plan for the Cutback City. While defining 'urban land' in Section 2(O) of the Act. it is no doubt indicated that it does not include any land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. Explanation (3) to the said sub-section clearly states that the land shall not be d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1993(I)OLR339
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. A matter of some importance relating to the implemention of the Urban Land (Ceilig and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter, 'the Act') has coma up for consideration in this petition, The question is whether the land-holder can claim that the vacant land within the ceiling limit which has been specified by him Under Section 6 of the Act must be allowed to be retained by him. Section 6 of the Act requires the land-holder to specify the vacant land which he desires to retain and Section 8(2)(iii), which deals preparation of draft statement, also requires particulars of the vacant land which such person desires to retain within the ceiling limit to find place in the statement. The question is whether this specification visualised by these two sections confers a right on the land-holder to claim that he must be allowed to retain the land so specified or mentioned.2. This question has come up for consideration because it has been found in the present case that a part of ...
Tag this Judgment!