Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16426 of 2014 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------M/s. ABB India Limited, represented through its Chief Financial Officer, Sri Amlan Datta Majumdar, Sachivalaya Marg, Unit-IX, Bhubaneswar, Odisha Petitioner Opp. Parties -VersusState of Odisha and others For Petitioner : Mr. B.K.Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Mr. Satyajit Mohanty For Opp. Parties : Mr. R.P.Kar, Standing Counsel (O.Ps.-Sales Tax Dept.) ---------- P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE I.MAHANTY AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.N.MAHAPATRA Date of Judgment : 26.09.2014 B.N. Mahapatra, J.In the present writ petition, challenge has been made to the legality and validity of the Audit Visit Report dated 03.02.2014 (Annexure-2) issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-I Circle, Bhubaneswar and the order of assessment dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure6 series) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, 2 Bhubaneswar-II Circle, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK. W.P.(C) No.13723 OF 2014 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----------M/s. Unit Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner -VersusThe Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, Cuttack and two others For Petitioner : For Opp. Parties : Opp. Parties M/s. A.N. Das, S.K. Raychoudhury & S. Satpathy Mr. R.P. Kar, Standing Counsel [For O.P.-Revenue]. -----------P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I.MAHANTY AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. MAHAPATRA Date of Judgment: 26.09.2014 B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.In the present writ petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 14.5.2014 passed under Annexure-3 by which opposite party No.3-Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar II Circle, Bhubaneswar informed the petitioner that as per provisions under Section 60 (1) of the OVAT Act, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha, Cuttack has been pleased to withhold the refund claim of Rs. 26,86,357/- for the 2 period from 1.10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4225 of 2006 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------------ Balaram Barik Petitioner Opposite Parties -VersusDivisional Manager and Divisional Superintendent, East Coast Railway, Khurda Road, Khurda For Petitioner : M/s. Prafulla Ku. Rath, R.C.Jena, P.K.Satpathi, R.N. Parija & A.K. Rout For Opposite Parties : Shri Anindya Kumar Mishra PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE I. MAHANTY AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. PARIJ.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Judgment : 26.09.2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.C. Parija, J.This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the Railway authorities-opposite parties, in trying to evict the petitioner from the Railway land in question, with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.A. Nos. 180 and 186 of 2012 In the matter of appeals under Article 4 of Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letter Patent and Chapter-III, Rule-6 of Orissa High Court Rules. ---------In W.A. No.180 of 2012 Vice Chairman, State Council for Technical Education Education & Vocational Training (S.C.T.E. & V.T.), Odisha -versus- Appellant Manorama Institute of Industrial Training & Engineering, Represented through its Secretary Hemanta Kumar Sarangi. Respondent For Appellant : Mr. B.M. Pattnaik, Sr. Counsel For Respondent : M/s. B. Routray, D.Routray, P.K. Sahoo, S.D.Das, S.Jena. For InterveNo.: Mr. A.K. Bose, Asst. Solicitor General. In W.A. No.186 of 2012 Vice Chairman, State Council for Technical Education Education & Vocational Training (S.C.T.E. & V.T.), Odisha Appellant -versusNarendra Nayak and others Respondents For Appellant : Mr. B.M. Pattnaik, Sr. Counsel For Respondents (1 to 9 & 11 and12) : M/s. D. Mund, P.K. Mahali, S.N. Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK W.P.(Civil) No.16294 of 2008 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------Biswabash Behuria Petitioner Versus Chairman, Coal India Ltd. and others For petitioner - For opp.party No.3- Opp. Parties M/s. S.P. Mishra, Sashikanta Mishra, S.K. Mishra M/s. R. Sharma, S.R. Suingh Samata, P.R. Pattnaik, B.K. Tripathy, ------------ PRESENT:- THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of hearing: 11.09.2014 : Date of judgment : 26.09.2014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.The petitioner seeks direction to opposite parties to restore his seniority as per All India Merit List for Welfare Officer (Trainees) fixing a deemed date of his entry into E-2 Grade as 24.06.1996 and further direction to promote him to the E-4 Grade with effect from the date his immediate juniors in E-3 Grad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK O.J.C. No.12427 of 1998 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------- Dibakar Swain Petitioner -versusCashew Development Corporation, Orissa Represented through its Managing Director and another Opp. Parties For Petitioner : M/s. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. D.N. Mohapatra, G.S.Satpathy, Smt. J.Mohanty. For Opp.Parties : M/s. Srimanta Das, S. Rath & A. Pattnaik. PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI Date of hearing: 10.09.2014| Date of judgment : 26.09.2014 Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.The petitioner has filed this application challenging the order of forfeiture dated 19.05.1998 vide Annexure-9 passed by the Manager, Land and Administration, Orissa State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. due to non-deposit of balance amount in respect of Landei Hill Cashew Plantation under the Divisional Manager, Khurda. 2 2. The factual matrix of the case in hand are that opposite party no.1 used to lease out the right of plu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK F.A.O. No.179 of 2012 Appeal under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act,1969. ---------Smita Rout Appellant -versusState of Orissa and others Respondents _____________ For Appellant : For Respondents : M/s. Sameer Kumar Das, S.K. Mishra. M/s A.K. Mishra, Addl. Govt. Advocate (for Res.No.1 &2) M/s.D.Routray, P.K.Sahu, S.Das, S.Jena, K.Mohanty, S.K.Samal, S.Rout ______________ (for Res.No.4) PRESENT:- THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI ____________________________________________________________ Date of hearing: 03.09.2014 : Date of judgment :26.09.2014 ____________________________________________________________ Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.The applicant in GIA Case No.354 of 2011 in State Education Tribunal, Orissa has filed this appeal impugning the judgment dated 17.3.2012 (Annexure-17) passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal in the said G.I.A Case upholding the order passed by the Director, Higher Education, Odisha (opposite party no.2) decl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK O.J.C. Nos. 590 of 2000 and O.J.C. No.15057 of 1999 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------In O.J.C. No.590 of 2000 Narendra Kumar Ratha and others Petitioners -versusState of Orissa and others Opposite Parties For Petitioners : M/s. P.K. Ray, P.K. Panda For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. A.K. Mishra Addl. Govt. Advocate For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. S.K.Nayak-1, Sr. Counsel. In O.J.C. No.15057 of 1999 Ganesh Ram Pradhan and others Petitioners -versusState of Orissa and others Opposite Parties For Petitioners : M/s. P.K. Ray, P.K. Panda For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. A.K. Mishra Addl. Govt. Advocate For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. S.K.Nayak-1, Sr. Counsel _____________________ 2 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI Date of hearing: 10.09.2014 | Date of judgment : 26.09.2014 Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.Both the writ applications having arisen out of same cause of action were heard together and are disposed of by this com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK O.J.C. No.10093 of 2001 & W.P.(C) No.5643 of 2002 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------In O.J.C. No.10093 of 2001 Binan Kumar Mohanty & others -versus- Petitioners Water & Land Management Institute (WALMI) & others Opposite Parties For Petitioners For Opposite Party Nos.1& 2 For Opposite Party No.3 : M/s. J.K. Rath (Sr.Adv.), S.N. Rath, P.K. Rout, S. MIshra, C.K.Rajguru & D.N. Rath. : M/s. S.K. Nayak, B.K. Sahoo, M.S. Sahoo, Miss M. Bhanja & Miss D. Nayak. : Mr. S. Kanungo, Addl. Govt. Advocate In W.P.(C). No.5643 of 2002 Nikhil Kumar Panda & others .. Petitioners -versusState of Orissa & others .. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s. J.K. Rath (Sr.Adv.), S.N. Rath, P.K. Rout, C.K. Rajguru & S. MIshra Mr. S. Kanungo, Addl. Govt. Advocate. For Opp. Party No.1 : For Opp.Party nos.2 & 3 : M/s. S.K. Nayak, B.K. Sahoo, M.S. Sahoo, Miss M. Bhanja & Miss D. Nayak. _____________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2971 of 2009 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------M/s Delhi Foot Wear, Shiv Bazar, Cuttack ..... Petitioner -VersusSales Tax Officer, Vigilance, Cuttack & others ..... Opposite Parties For petitioner : M/s. P.K.Jena & S.C. Sahoo For Opp. Parties : Mr.R.P.Kar, Standing Counsel [For O.P.-Revenue]. -----------P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I.MAHANTY AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. MAHAPATRA Date of Judgment: 25.09.2014 B.N. Mahapatra, J.This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order of assessment dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-1 Range, Cuttack under Annexure-1 on the ground that the said order is barred by limitation and has been passed without complying with the statutory requirement of Section 42(2) of the OVAT Act. 2 2. Petitioners case in a nutshell is that it is a proprietorship concern dealing with Foot Wear on wh...
Tag this Judgment!