Orissa High Court Monthly Digest - January 2023 [Citations 1-13]

Nominal IndexAnimesh Chakraborty v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 1Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 2Soli @ Sulachana Jena & Anr. v. Chief Executive Officer, NESCO (Electrical), Balasore & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 3Sk. Jumman @ Badruddin v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 4Santosh Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 5Girish Prasad Mishra & Anr. v. Smt. Lopamudra Kar, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 6Shrikant Mohta v. Republic of India (CBI), 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 7Mukunda Parichha v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 8Gourahari Lenka v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 9Subham Jena & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 10Bobby Islam v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 11State of Odisha (Vig.) v. Debasis Dixit, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 12V. Vinay v. Srinu Patro & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 13Judgments/Orders Orissa High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To YouTuber Accused Of Taking Drone Shots Of Puri Jagannath TempleCase Title: Animesh Chakraborty v. State of OdishaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 1The 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 CourtCase Title: Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 2The 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 WireCase Title: Soli @ Sulachana Jena & Anr. v. Chief Executive Officer, NESCO (Electrical), Balasore & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 3The 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 CourtCase Title: Sk. Jumman @ Badruddin v. State of OdishaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 4The 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 CourtCase Title: Santosh Kumar Nayak v. State of OdishaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 5The 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...

Orissa High Court Monthly Digest - January 2023 [Citations 1-13]

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags