Orissa High Court Quarterly Digest: January-March, 2023

1. Animesh Chakraborty v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 1

2. Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 2

3. Soli @ Sulachana Jena & Anr. v. Chief Executive Officer, NESCO (Electrical), Balasore & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 3

4. Sk. Jumman @ Badruddin v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 4

5. Santosh Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 5

6. Girish Prasad Mishra & Anr. v. Smt. Lopamudra Kar, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 6

7. Shrikant Mohta v. Republic of India (CBI), 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 7

8. Mukunda Parichha v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 8

9. Gourahari Lenka v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 9

10. Subham Jena & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 10

11. Bobby Islam v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 11

12. State of Odisha (Vig.) v. Debasis Dixit, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 12

13. V. Vinay v. Srinu Patro & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 13

14. Ashok Kumar Das v. Kapileswar Samal & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 14

15. Smt. Geeta Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 15

16. Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 16

17. Rabindra Kumar Jena v. Republic of India (CBI), 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 17

18. Sureswar Mishra v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 18

19. Vedanta Resources Ltd. v. ACIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 19

20. Gau Gyan Foundation ‘Rudrashram Gaushala’ v. The State of Odisha & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 20

21. D. Anita Majhi @ Mila v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 21

22. State of Odisha v. M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 22

23. M. Rajamma v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 23

24.,Hrusikesh Sahoo & Anr. v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 24

25. Smt. Renuka Sethi & Ors. v. Babu Sahu & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 25

26. PCIT (Central) versus Narayan Kumar Khaitan, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 26

27. Management Committee, CFH Scheme, Paradip Port v. Paradip Port Workers Union & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 27

28. Bichitrananda Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 28

29. Manager Legal, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha Agarwal & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 29

30. Prangya Paramita Harichandan v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 30

31. Amrita Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 31

32. M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. ITAT, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 32

33. Laxmi Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 33

34. M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. ITAT, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 34

35. State of Odisha v. M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 35

36. Minaketan Nayak & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 36

37. M/s. Kamadhenu Cattle & Poultry Feed Unit v. The State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 37

38. Maria Kadaisma @ Kadaiska @ Salmina v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 38

39. M/s. Galaxy Bar and Restaurant, Nayagarh v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 39

40. Rudra Narayan Sahu v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 40

41. Basanta Dehury & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 41

42. Litumanjari Pradhan v. Chairman, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 42

43. Jayanti Naik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 43

44. Hemalata Mohapatra v. Bijay Kumar Pradhani, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 44

45. Khudia @ Khudiram Tudu v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 45

46. Midiyan Pani & Ors. v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 46

47. M/s. Jena Trading and Co. v. CT and GST Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 47

48. Ananda Ch. Sahu v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 48

49, Rabindra Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 49

50. Prafulla Chandra Mohapatra @ Prusty v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 50

Judgments/Orders Reported During January-March, 2023

Orissa High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To YouTuber Accused Of Taking Drone Shots Of Puri Jagannath Temple

Case Title: Animesh Chakraborty v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 1

The High Court rejected anticipatory bail application filed by a YouTuber, who was accused of taking drone-shots and capturing photos and videos of the holy temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri, which comes under the ‘red zone’/ ‘no flying zone’. While denying relief to the petitioner, the single judge bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash said:

“It is expected from a law-abiding citizen more particularly from a person in the stature of the Petitioner who claims to have gained experience of getting photographs and videograph of the monuments and heritage of importance irrespective of being a tourist or freelancer to adhere to a minimum caution by obtaining permission from the temple authority, if at all he had intention to take the over view of the Temple or its surroundings. Absence of it raises the question of bonafideness.”

Vedanta Claimed Unutilized ITC Refund, No Scope For Supplementary Refund Application Based On Fresh Calculation: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda v. Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 2

The Orissa High Court held that Vedanta has claimed the refund of the unutilized input tax credit on account of zero-rated supplies by clubbing up all the transactions relating to three units. It held that there is no scope to insist on consideration of a supplementary refund application based on a fresh calculation made by taking individual unit-wise transactions into account.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman further observed that Rule 89(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is intra vires. The rule is framed in conformity with the powers conferred on the government under Section 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and there is no necessity to read down Rule 89(4).

Orissa High Court Orders Rs. 2 Lakhs Compensation To Family Of Man Who Died In 2001 After Coming In Contact With Live Electric Wire

Case Title: Soli @ Sulachana Jena & Anr. v. Chief Executive Officer, NESCO (Electrical), Balasore & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 3

The High Court ordered two lakhs’ rupees compensation to the wife and son of a man who died after coming in contact with a live electric wire in 2001. While allowing the writ petition, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath reprimanded the electricity department and said:

“The representation claiming compensation was filed in 2001. It is not expected that the Department shut down its eyes even after filing of Writ Petition forget if to take steps for minimal enquiry on a representation being filed at least to have a fact finding report. The Writ Petition was even filed in 2010.”

Precedents Can’t Be Read As Euclid’s Theorem, Must Be Applied In Context: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Sk. Jumman @ Badruddin v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 4

The High Court reiterated that judgments cannot be construed mechanically in adjudication of cases and those must be applied having regard for the given facts of a case. While disapproving the manner in which counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on certain judgments, the Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Narasingh sternly observed,

“In relying on the said judgments, bereft of the facts in which the same were decided, learned counsel for the Petitioner lost sight of the seminal principle of interpretation of the judgment. Inasmuch as it is trite law that observations in the judgments cannot be read as “Euclid’s theorem”. It has to be applied in the given facts of a particular case.”

Law That Sex On False Promise To Marriage Amounts To Rape Appears To Be Erroneous, Deserves A Relook: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Santosh Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 5

The Orissa High Court doubted the law holding that sex on false promise of marriage amounts to rape. The Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi questioned the rationality of 'automatic extension' of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to determine the validity of consent for sex on false promise of marriage and called for a ‘serious relook’ of the same.

“Nonetheless, it radiates from the above discussion that the law is well settled that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not a valid consent. Hence, the automatic extension of provisions of Section 90 of I.P.C. to determine the effect of a consent under Section 375 of I.P.C. deserves a serious relook. The law holding that false promise to marriage amounts to rape appears to be erroneous.”

Complainant Need Not Cite Detailed Particulars Of Every Single Act Of Domestic Violence In Complaint: Orissa HC Refuses To Quash Case Against In-Laws

Case Title: Girish Prasad Mishra & Anr. v. Smt. Lopamudra Kar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 6

The Court clarified that a complainant need not mention the detailed particulars of every single act of domestic violence in the complaint itself. Thus, even a prima facie disclosure of acts of violence would be sufficient to maintain a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. While rejecting a revision petition praying to drop the proceedings, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

“After perusing the complaint petition, this Court is of the considered view that some allegations have been made undoubtedly in general terms but then it is not expected of the complainant to cite the detailed particulars of every single such act that may be treated as an act of domestic violence.”

Orissa High Court Allows Shrikant Mohta To Travel To Thailand For Film Production, Directs Trial Court To Release His Passport

Case Title: Shrikant Mohta v. Republic of India (CBI)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 7

The Court directed the trial court to release the passport of Bengali film producer Shrikant Mohta, who is an accused in multi-crore Rose Valley chit fund scam, to enable him to travel to Thailand for the purpose of film production. Mohta was granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2021 on health grounds. Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik said since Mohta is a known figure in the entertainment industry based at Kolkata, there is a remote chance of his absconding and staying away from the limits of the trial court. The bench also noted that investigation has been concluded and there is no material placed on record to show that he had ever misutilised the liberty granted after release on bail.

Rape | ‘Too Broad A Generalization’ To Hold That A Woman Would Never Speak Something Affecting Her Character: Orissa HC

Case Title: Mukunda Parichha v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 8

The Orissa High Court observed that it is “too broad a generalization” to hold that a woman would never speak which will be detrimental to her character and estimation. Therefore, in rape cases, the rule that version of the prosecutrix need no corroboration cannot be taken as a ‘rigid formula’ in adjudication of every single case. While allowing an appeal against conviction for rape, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held:

“Learned Court below has also considered the theoretical possibility that a woman ordinarily would not like to speak about something affecting her character and estimation. While the above may be a plausible presumption of the conduct of a woman subjected to rape the same would be too broad a generalization to be accepted in every case as a rigid formula.”

Second Writ Petition Seeking To Enforce Order Made In An Earlier Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Orissa High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Gourahari Lenka v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 9

The Orissa High Court reiterated that a second writ petition, which is filed seeking enforcement of order made in an earlier writ petition, is maintainable. While clarifying the position, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Indrapuri Studio v. State of West Bengal, 2003 (3) Calcutta High Court Notes (CHN) 148, wherein the Court had quoted the following para from the judgment in Bibekananda Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2003) 1 WBLR (Cal) 213.

“It is therefore, settled law that the second writ application is maintainable for implementation of an earlier order of the writ Court. This Court must issue proper directions for proper implementation of previous directions. Where there has been an order, the order must be complied with. An act done is wilful disobedience of a Court Order is not only contempt, but also, an illegal and invalid act. The language used in Article 226 of the Constitution of India is couched in comprehensive phraseology and the said Article recognizes a very wide power on the High Courts to remedy injustice wherever it is found.”

JJ Act | Child In Conflict With Law Can Seek Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Subham Jena & Anr. v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 10

The High Court held that the provision of anticipatory bail as provided under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be applicable to ‘children-in-conflict-with-law’ (CCLs). The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra rejected the argument that since there is no provision for ‘arrest’ under the Juvenile Justice Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as ‘anticipation of arrest’ is a pre-condition for grant of bail. The Court said,

“…merely because the word ‘arrest’ has not been used in the JJ Act, cannot operate to the detriment of a child in conflict with law, who has reason to believe that he may be apprehended in a non-bailable offence. This would tantamount to placing undue restrictions on a Person’s right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

'Throws Integrity Of Art To The Wolves': Orissa High Court Quashes List Of State Film Awardees Over Plagiarism & Uncredited Remakes

Case Title: Bobby Islam v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 11

The Court nullified and set aside the list of awardees for the coveted 31st Odisha State Film Awards, 2019 on the ground that two films were found to be placed in the list in utter violation of the Odisha State Films Awards Rules. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, after verifying the allegations, discovered the movies to be plagiarised and copied from films of other languages and thus, observed:

“After ocular verification of the films, it appears that the two films, i.e., “KHUSI” & “GOLMAL LOVE” are heavily inspired from the alleged non-Odia films at least. Considering a comparison of the impugned films with the plot and scenes in the Korean film ‘HOPE’ and Punjabi film “CARRY ON JATTA”, it is clear that from the plethora of facts, circumstances and stated overlap that the impugned motion films are uncredited remakes of the aforementioned non-Odia films.”

S. 378 CrPC | Right To Appeal Against Acquittal Should Be Used By The State Sparingly: Orissa High Court

Case Title: State of Odisha (Vig.) v. Debasis Dixit

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 12

The Orissa High Court advised the State to exercise its right to appeal against acquittal, as provided under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., sparingly and with circumspection. While denying the leave to prefer an appeal, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo remarked,

“The right of appeal against acquittal vested in the State Government should be used sparingly and with circumspection and it is to be made only in case of public importance or where there has been a miscarriage of justice of a very grave nature.”

S.9(2) JJ Act | Court Must Undertake Inquiry Before Rendering Decision On Plea Of Juvenility Of Accused: Orissa High Court

Case Title: V. Vinay v. Srinu Patro & Anr. and another connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 13

The High Court clarified that when a plea of juvenility is made before a Court, other than a Juvenile Justice Board, it must undertake an inquiry and take evidence, if any as per the mandate of Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, before rendering any decision on the application. While setting aside an order for non-compliance of the above provision, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed:

“…when such a claim is raised before a court not being a Juvenile Justice Board, it is for the said court to make an enquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary to determine the age and to record a finding in the matter basing thereon. Of course, in doing so, the provisions under Section 94 of the Act can also be considered but the Statute requires that an enquiry should be made and if necessary, evidence may also be taken.”

Orissa High Court Refuses To Reverse 29 Yrs Old Acquittal Order In 'Civil Dispute' Painted As Theft Case

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Das v. Kapileswar Samal & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 14

The Orissa High Court declined to interfere in an appeal against acquittal of some persons, which was recorded by a Magistrate Court in 1994, for allegedly cutting and removing away paddy from the complainant’s field. While dismissing the appeal, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy said:

“One of the important facts, which weighed in the mind of this court is that the order of acquittal of the accused persons was recorded by the learned trial Court around 29 years back and reversing such finding of acquittal after a long lapse of time, can never be said to be in the interest of justice for a matter relating to civil dispute between the parties.”

S.498A IPC | Case Can Be Filed At A Place Where Wife Resides After Leaving Matrimonial Home On Account Of Cruelty: Orissa HC Reiterates

Case Title: Smt. Geeta Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 15

The Orissa High Court reiterated that a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be filed at a place where a woman resides after leaving or being driven out of matrimonial home on account of cruelty. While terming the aforesaid charge as a ‘continuing offence’, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed,

“…the physical acts of cruelty have definite consequence on mental faculty of the victim of torture. Hence, the physical cruelty meted to the wife at her matrimonial home would have an adverse impact and effects on the mental health of the wife at her parental home, especially when the offence U/S. 498-A of IPC is a continuing offence and torture as meted to wife at different place would also torture the wife mentally for a longer period.”

Orissa High Court Allows Deduction To The Co-operative Society Involved In The Business Of Banking

Case Title: Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 16

The Orissa High Court granted deduction to the Co-operative Society engaged in the banking business. The Division bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman observed that the tribunal was justified in making further classification while interpreting Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act by treating it to be different from the primary agriculture rural development bank/co-operative societies.

Seashore Chit Fund Scam: Orissa High Court Declines To Quash Proceedings Against Ex-MP Rabindra Jena

Case Title: Rabindra Kumar Jena v. Republic of India (CBI)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 17

The Orissa High Court dismissed a petition seeking to set aside pending criminal proceedings against former Member of Parliament (MP) from Odisha’s Balasore Rabindra Kumar Jena, who is an accused in multi-crore Seashore chit fund scam. While denying relief to the ex-parliamentarian, the Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray said:

“It is not that the money was received through the companies owned by the Petitioner, but by him personally. So, the otherwise inference is that he must have a close nexus with Prashant Kumar Dash, the principal accused. If the relationship is not purely business or official, then it must be for any suspicious purpose and this needs to be examined in course of trial.”

‘Madhu Barrister Would Have Hanged His Head In Shame’: Orissa HC Criticizes Conduct Of Striking Lawyers Of Sambalpur, Grants Bail

Case Title: Sureswar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 18

The Orissa High Court heavily criticized the unruly conducts of striking lawyers of Sambalpur while they staged a violent protest in December last year with a demand to establish a permanent Bench of the High Court in the western part of the State. While granting bail to Sureswar Mishra, the President of District Bar Association, Sambalpur and 28 other lawyers, a Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Narasingh sorrily observed,

“Birthday of grand old man of Odisha (Kula Brudha) Madhusudan Das popularly known as Madhu Barrister is celebrated every year in this State on 28th of April as “Lawyers Day”. He would have hanged his head in shame and despair knowing that the petitioners-advocates, whose licenses to practice have been suspended by the Bar Council of India, are accused of vandalizing the temple of justice.”

Invalid Assumption Of Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Against Vedanta

Case Title: Vedanta Resources Ltd. v. ACIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 19

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman quashed a reassessment notice issued against Vedanta Resources Ltd. (VRL) on the grounds of invalid assumption of jurisdiction. The issue raised was whether the CIT International Taxation, Bhubaneswar can exercise jurisdiction over the VRL which is a non-resident company incorporated in UK. The Court was not satisfied that the Department has been able to explain the legal basis for ACIT at Bhubaneswar exercising jurisdiction over the petitioner and issuing the notices under Section 148. It held that notices issued by ACIT at Bhubaneswar were without jurisdiction and, therefore, are unsustainable in law.

[Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act] No Absolute Bar Against Interim Release Of Seized Cattle To Accused-Owner: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Gau Gyan Foundation ‘Rudrashram Gaushala’ v. The State of Odisha & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 20

The Orissa High Court said that there is no specific rule under either the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 requiring mandatory denial of interim custody of seized cattle to the accused-owner. While interpreting the provisions of the statute and the Rules, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik said,

“…the animals may even be released in favour of the owner despite a conviction if there is no previous antecedent or he does not have any such past conduct or official record of his character which may influence the court not to handover the animals as there may be a possibility of being further exposed to cruelty.”

'Delay In Trial Offends Article 21 Everyday': Orissa HC Expedites Trials Of Alleged ‘Tribal Extremists’ Detained Since 8 Yrs

Case Title: D. Anita Majhi @ Mila v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 21

The Orissa High Court directed trial courts to expedite trials of cases involving three female tribal ladies who have been languishing in jail for over last eight years after being branded as ‘extremists’ by the State. While providing relief to the petitioners, a Division Bench of Justices Subhasis Talapatra and Savitri Ratho noted,

“…the Petitioners are languishing in custody for about 8 years. During their detention to their dismay, they were shown to be accused in some cases in which investigation is pending… This is a ploy to keep the Petitioners behind the bars. The delay in completing the trial appears un-surmountable and the Petitioners’ right enshrined under Article 21 is offended every day.”

Mosquito Repellent ‘Good Knight’ Is An Insecticide, 4% VAT Applicable: Orissa High Court

Case Title: State of Odisha v. M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 22

The High Court held that the mosquito repellent "Good Knight" sold by Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. is an insecticide. The Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman upheld the order of the tribunal and noted that the mosquito repellent is an insecticide within the meaning of that expression in Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule B and, therefore, a 4% tax is applicable

Orissa High Court Raps Tahasildar For ‘Lackadaisical Attitude’ In Issuing Records Of Land Allotted To Indo-Pak War Widow

Case Title: M. Rajamma v. State of Orissa & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 23

The Orissa High Court came down heavily on the Tahasildar, Chatrapur, in Ganjam district for "lackadaisical attitude" and inaction on his part to consider the application of an octogenarian Indo-Pak war-widow to re-issue the records of her land which she lost due to the 1999 super-cyclone. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath said,

“…this Court finding this to be a fit case while expressing its anxiety in the inaction of the Tahasildar, Chatrapur for over two months involving such serious issues recording the Tahasildar failed in appreciating this not an ordinary case put up before him and the case involves a War-Widow whose husband has lost his life for the Nation requesting early attention to such issues.”

Probation of Offenders Act: Orissa High Court Extends Benefit To Two Convicted ‘29 Yrs Ago’ For Violating Rice & Paddy Control Order

Case Title: Hrusikesh Sahoo & Anr. v. State of Orissa

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 24

The Orissa High Court released two persons on probation who were convicted ‘29 years’ back for transporting rice bags in violation of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy deemed it inappropriate to send the convicts to prison at such a delayed point of time and thus, observed-

“…the convicts are first time offenders and no previous conviction of the appellants has been proved against them and more than 29 years have elapsed in the meantime after conviction of the appellants and the convicts were aged about 34 and 39 years as on the date of their conviction and now they would be more than 63 and 68 years.”

Liability Of Insurer Commences When Premium Paid & Cover Note Issued, Irrespective Of Time Mentioned In Insurance Policy: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Smt. Renuka Sethi & Ors. v. Babu Sahu & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 25

The Orissa High Court clarified that the liability of an insurer commences from the moment the insurance premium is paid by the insured and cover note is issued to him. Therefore, an insurer cannot escape its liability merely because the insurance policy had mentioned a separate date for commencement of the policy. While fastening liability of the insurer to compensate the death of an employee which occurred in course of employment, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray said,

“…in the present facts of the case that, the insurance coverage commenced from 2 pm on 25th January, 2000 as mentioned in the cover note. When the accident took place at 4pm, i.e. 2 hours after the cover note was issued and premium received, undoubtedly the liability of the insurer cannot be absolved.”

Appearance Of AR Not Enough For Presuming Service On Assessee Under S. 292BB Of ITA: Orissa High Court

Case Title: PCIT (Central) v. Narayan Kumar Khaitan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 26

The Orissa High Court deprecated an Income Tax Authority who, despite being informed that the assessee was in judicial custody, failed to serve a notice upon him through the Superintendent of the concerned jail, in the proceedings initiated against him under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman remarked that a person in judicial custody is deprived of many constitutional rights, and thus any officer of the Government, including a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), must pass an appropriate order requiring service of notice on the assessee, who is in judicial custody, through the Superintendent of the concerned jail.

Mere Admission Of Different Date Of Birth Not Better Proof Than School Leaving Certificate: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Management Committee, CFH Scheme, Paradip Port v. Paradip Port Workers Union & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 27

The Orissa High Court observed that mere admission by a person of a different date as his date of birth cannot stand in the face of documentary proof of date of birth like School Leaving Certificate. While providing relief to a workman against his management, a Division Bench of Justices Arindam Sinha and Sanjay Kumar Mishra said,

“This admission cannot stand in face of the documentary evidence, borne out by the school leaving certificate. School leaving certificate is one of the proofs of date of birth. Furthermore, admissions can be explained. Section 31 in Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says admissions are not conclusive proof but may operate as estoppel under the provisions thereafter contained.”

Contractual Employee Can’t Be Removed From Service Without Following Rules Of Natural Justice, Orissa High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Bichitrananda Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 28

The Orissa High Court reiterated that the rules of natural justice are required to be followed before disengaging even a contractual employee. While providing relief to a junior teacher (contractual), who was removed without being provided an opportunity to defend himself, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra said:

“This Court is not impressed with the argument that being a contractual employee no rules or procedure are required to be followed before disengaging him. It is rather the settled position of law that even in case of a contractual employee the rules of natural justice are required to be followed to the hilt.”

[Motor Accident] Managerial Skills Of Deceased To Run Business Can Be Considered While Counting 'Loss Of Dependency': Orissa High Court

Case Title: Manager Legal, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha Agarwal & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 29

The Orissa High Court, while placing reliance upon recent decisions of the Apex Court, clarified that managerial skills and expertise of a deceased person to run his business is to be taken into account while counting the loss of dependency of his dependants, who continue his business. Reaffirming the position, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray observed,

“Perusal of afore-cited cases reveals the proposition that, for counting the loss of dependency, where the business entity subsists even after death of the deceased and is managed by the dependants, the managerial skill and expertise of the deceased to run the business is to be considered along with specific facts and circumstances brought on record.”

‘Horizontal Quota’ For A Particular Social Category Can’t Be Filled By Candidates Of Other Social Category: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Prangya Paramita Harichandan v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 30

The Orissa High Court clarified that unlike ‘vertical reservation’ in which principle of mobility is applicable, ‘horizontal reservation’ for a particular social category can only be granted to candidates coming under that social category and not beyond that. For example: horizontal quota meant for unreserved category women cannot be occupied by SC/ST/OBC category women. While simplifying the position of law, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

“…it is evident that the principle of mobility as applicable in case of social (vertical) reservations are not applicable to special (horizontal) reservation. This implies that the special reservations like women etc. have to be confined to their respective social categories.”

S. 97 CrPC | Second Application For Search Of Persons Wrongfully Confined Can Be Entertained If New Facts & Circumstances Arise: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Amrita Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 31

The Orissa High Court clarified that a second application under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred by the principle of res judicata and can be entertained if some new facts and circumstances arise warranting intervention. Notably, the Section provides “search for persons wrongfully confined”. While allowing the revision petition filed against the dismissal of a second application under the above provision, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra said,

“…in particular, looking at the statutory intent behind enactment of Section 97 of Cr.P.C. it can be safely held that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the filing of the subsequent application cannot be treated as barred by law.”

Assesses Failed To File Affidavit Proving Repayment Of Loans: Orissa High Court Sustains Addition On “Unsecured Loan”

Case Title: M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. Versus ITAT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 32

The Orissa High Court sustained the addition of unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman observed that the direction issued by the ITAT in the first round was to the effect that the AO should verify whether the assessee had repaid the amount "by calling all the creditors". Therefore, it is the AO who should have issued a summons to them to appear. Even assuming that the AO did not do so, the fact remains that the assessee did not ask for a summons to be issued.

Orissa High Court Sets Aside Order Pronounced ‘15 Months’ After Hearing Concluded; Says Authority May Forget Parties' Submissions After So Long

Case Title: Laxmi Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 33

The Orissa High Court set aside an order by a Revenue Divisional Commissioner which was pronounced 15 months after hearing of the case concluded. Additionally, the Court directed all the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities in the State to abide by the mandate of Order 20 Rule 1, CPC which prescribes time limit for delivery of judgment. While deprecating unreasonable delay in pronouncing verdict, a Single Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath said,

“…if such mode is accepted, then disposal of such matters providing opportunity of hearing may not be a requirement and it may be opened to the adjudicatory authority to decide the matter accordingly on the basis of pleadings and objection, if any, of the respective parties, which is never the intention in setting up the Quasi-Judicial authority.”

Assesses Failed To File Affidavit Proving Repayment Of Loans: Orissa High Court Sustains Addition On “Unsecured Loan”

Case Title: M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. ITAT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 34

The Orissa High Court sustained the addition of unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman observed that the direction issued by the ITAT in the first round was to the effect that the AO should verify whether the assessee had repaid the amount "by calling all the creditors". Therefore, it is the AO who should have issued a summons to them to appear.

Kinley Water Falls Within Water, Not Aerated Or Mineral Water, Comes Within Tax Free List: Orissa High Court

Case Title: State of Odisha v. M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 35

The Orissa High Court held that the sale of packaged drinking water under the brand name ‘Kinley Water’ falls within the expression "water but not aerated or mineral water sold in bottles or sealed containers," which is covered under Entry No. 39 of the Tax-Free List. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murhari Sri Raman observed that the packaged drinking water sold under such brand name is nothing but purified water.

Orissa High Court Quashes Police Circular Order Conferring ‘Power Of Investigation’ On Graduate Constables & CI Havildars

Case Title: Minaketan Nayak & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 36

The High Court nullified a Police Circular Order (PCO) which conferred ‘power of investigation’ on Graduate Constables and Crime Intelligence Havildars. While setting aside the order, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held,

“…this Court by no stretch of imagination could presume that the legislatures while enacting Sections 156 and 157 of the Cr.P.C. were not aware of the meaning of the word “Officer”. Furthermore, while providing that the cases are to be investigated by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, it has also been provided that in course of investigation the OIC / IIC cannot send a person to the spot for investigation who is below the rank of an Officer as has been prescribed by the State Government in this behalf.”

Chokad Is Not An Industrial Input: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Imposing 4% VAT

Case Title: M/s. Kamadhenu Cattle & Poultry Feed Unit v. The State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 37

The Orissa High Court quashed an order imposing 4% Value-Added Tax (VAT) on wheat bran (chokad) as it is not an industrial input. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that it was necessary for the Department to show that there was a notification issued by the State Government identifying ‘Chokad’ as an ‘industrial input'. In the absence of such notification, the Bench held, no inference could have been drawn that the ‘chokad’ sold to NALCO was in fact an ‘industrial input’.

“Legal System Completely Failed Him”: Orissa High Court Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Wife Of Tribal Man Killed In Police Custody

Case Title: Maria Kadaisma @ Kadaiska @ Salmina v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 38

The High Court ordered the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the Odisha Police to pay an amount of rupees ten lakhs as compensation to the wife of a tribal man who was killed in their custody in 2010. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman said it is no coincidence that the deceased tribal, who was tortured to death after being labelled a maoist with not even an iota of evidence, belonged to the poorer sections of the society. It lamented that the victim was denied his basic rights while in custody and said,

“He had no one to represent his interests or to give him legal assistance while in custody. The legal system appears to have completely failed him. The mandatory fundamental rights available to an arrested person as spelt out in Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India were violated with impunity in this case first by the CRPF and then the police.”

Unrealistic To Expect GST Return Filing Without Actual Commencement Of Business: Orissa High Court Directs Dept. To Process Licence Application

Case Title: M/s. Galaxy Bar and Restaurant, Nayagarh v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 39

The Orissa High Court held that license application should not be rejected only because a GST return has not been filed yet, since it is unrealistic to expect that to happen without the actual commencement of its business. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed that unless the petitioner is issued a license and is able to commence its business, the question of filing a GST return would not arise.

Section 311 CrPC | Orissa High Court Allows Recall Of Witness 26 Yrs After He Was Cross-Examined & Discharged

Case Title: Rudra Narayan Sahu v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 40

The Orissa High Court allowed a petition filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after a delay of ‘26 years’ for recalling a witness who was cross-examined and discharged in 1997. While stressing on the right of the accused to fair trial, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

“This is a classic case where the question of belated justice is pitted against the right of the accused to a fair trial. Having regard to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India, this Court would rather lean in favour of the latter than the former so that the end result i.e., of rendering of justice to the parties is actually realised.”

Witchcraft Double Murder: Orissa High Court Issues Notice To Life Convicts Proposing To Impose Higher Punishment

Case Title: Basanta Dehury & Ors. v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 41

While upholding conviction of three persons for double murder on suspicion of witchcraft, the Orissa High Court issued notice to them proposing to impose higher sentence than life imprisonment which was imposed by the Trial Court. Expressing doubt over adequacy of the sentence for such ghastly crime by means of beheading, the Division Bench of Justice Debabrata Dash and Justice Sashikanta Mishra ordered,

“…in exercise of the revisional power under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we propose to issue notice to these accused persons to have their say on the adequacy of sentence and as to why they should not be visited with the sentence of higher degree.”

Promissory Estoppel Not To Apply In Favour Of Student Who Despite Knowledge Of Failure In Intermediate Exam Acquired Higher Qualification: Orissa HC Full Bench

Case Title: Litumanjari Pradhan v. Chairman, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 42

A Full Bench of Orissa High Court answered a reference deciding the correctness of a decision rendered by a Division Bench wherein it was held that the rule of estoppel will apply in favour of a student, who without knowing that he has failed in matriculation/intermediate examination, gets higher education and joins service. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman said the decision of the Division Bench is no longer good law.

“It is no doubt true that the Courts have, more often than not, leaned in favour of the students, but as the things stand, a line must be drawn between cases where there have been a bona fide error and cases where the circumstances are dubious,” said the court.

Orissa High Court Asks Collector To Reconsider Appeal For Issuance Of ST Certificate On Basis Of Mother’s Tribe

Case Title: Jayanti Naik v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 43

The Orissa High Court ordered an appellate authority (collector) to reconsider an appeal against denial of tribe certificate to a boy who was brought up by his tribal mother. The woman had been deserted by her non-tribal husband. While giving relief to the petitioner, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha observed,

“The appellate authority thereafter went on to take view that the Tahsildar had properly followed the procedures as per rules and regulations, while rejecting the application of appellant. Assertion of petitioner on facts regarding bringing up of her son in the tribal community was not even looked at.”

Section 138, NI Act | Proceedings Can’t Be Invalidated Merely Because Costs For Miscellaneous Expenses Claimed Alongwith Cheque Amount: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Hemalata Mohapatra v. Bijay Kumar Pradhani

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 44

The Orissa High Court held that a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be invalidated only because the notice claims costs for some miscellaneous expenses alongside demanding the cheque amount. While relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed,

“…in view of the settled legal position in K.R. Indira (supra), the irresistible conclusion is that the defect in notice cannot invalidate the proceeding when the demand is only for the cheque amount with additional claim towards the miscellaneous expenses…”

“Criminal Trial Is Not IPL T20 Match”: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction As Defence Counsel Not Granted Reasonable Time For Preparation

Case Title: Khudia @ Khudiram Tudu v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 45

The Orissa High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on a rape accused on the ground that the State Defence Counsel, who represented him in the Trial Court, was neither supplied with police papers nor given a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the cross-examination of the victim. Expressing dissatisfaction over the hurried-up manner in which the cross-examination was completed, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,

“Engaging a new State Defence Counsel without providing him police papers and just asking him to inspect the case record and to cross-examine the victim and also taking consent from him to conclude the cross-examination on that day itself, in my humble view, is a gross illegality and the accused has been seriously prejudiced by such action of the trial Court. A criminal trial is not an IPL T20 match where every ‘substitute player’ can be an ‘impact player’.”

Orissa High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against 146 Villagers Who Gathered In Church Amid COVID Restrictions To Offer Prayers For Departed Soul

Case Title: Midiyan Pani & Ors. v. State of Orissa

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 46

The Court quashed a criminal case pending against 146 villagers of a village in Rayagada district for allegedly congregating in a Church to offer prayers for a departed soul at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic was prevailing and government guidelines restricting gatherings were imposed. While granting relief, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra said,

“…this Court finds lack of evidence of any criminal intention on the part of the Petitioners, rather, the congregation was for a pious reason to pray for a departed soul. Obviously, no criminality can be attributed in such a case.”

Different Amount Mentioned In Tax Invoice And E-Way Bill: Orissa High Court Orders Issuance Of Fresh Assessment Order

Case Title: M/s. Jena Trading and Co. v. CT and GST Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 47

The Orissa High Court held that different amounts mentioned in a tax invoice and e-Way Bill indicate a palpable error in the waybill, which may be construed as a human error. The Division Bench of Justice Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman quashed the assessment order and remitted the matter back to the assessing authority for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

Executive Magistrate Not Empowered To Record Confession For Offences Under Essential Commodities Act: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Ananda Ch. Sahu v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 48

The Orissa High Court held that an Executive Magistrate is not empowered to record confession for offences committed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It also held that in absence of any specific procedure governing recording of confession and trial under the Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply. While clarifying the position of law, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

“The very words, ‘or under any other law for the time being in force’ implies that investigations conducted in respect of offences under Special Acts like the Essential Commodities Act shall also be governed by the provisions under Section 164 of CrPC unless a specific procedure is laid down in such Act(s).”

Wife Can’t Prosecute Extra-Marital Partner Of Husband For Domestic Violence Only Because She Lived In Their House: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Rabindra Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 49

The Orissa High Court observed that an illicit/extra-marital partner of husband cannot be prosecuted under the Domestic Violence Act by wife merely because she lived in the house of the couple. The Court said, both the women (wife and extra-marital partner) do not share ‘domestic relationship’ as per Section 2(f) of the Act, which is a pre-condition to invoke the provisions of the statute, merely because they stayed under the same roof.

Section 329(2) CrPC | Physical Presence Of Accused Essential For Determining Unsoundness Of Mind Making Him Incapable To Enter Defence: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Prafulla Chandra Mohapatra @ Prusty v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 50

The Orissa High Court clarified that physical presence of accused in the Court is essential, under Section 329(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to assess if unsoundness of mind renders him incapable to enter defence. It underlined that the concerned Court must not pass order to that effect without examining the accused, merely basing upon medical certificate. While elucidating the point of law, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik said,

“…to determine the mental faculty of the accused and whether he is capable to defend himself, it shall have to be assessed by the Court and for the said purpose his examination is necessary and the same is the statutory mandate. Merely by referring to the medical papers and certificate of the Medical Board, a Court is not to pass any such order either discharging him or postponing the trial.”