Orissa High Court Monthly Digest: March 2023

Nominal Index [Citations 30 -50]1. Prangya Paramita Harichandan v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 30 2. Amrita Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 31 3. M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. ITAT, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 32 4. Laxmi Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 33 5. M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. ITAT, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 34 6. State of Odisha v. M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 35 7. Minaketan Nayak & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 36 8. M/s. Kamadhenu Cattle & Poultry Feed Unit v. The State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 37 9. Maria Kadaisma @ Kadaiska @ Salmina v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 38 10. M/s. Galaxy Bar and Restaurant, Nayagarh v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 39 11. Rudra Narayan Sahu v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 40 12. Basanta Dehury & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 41 13. Litumanjari Pradhan v. Chairman, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 42 14. Jayanti Naik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 43 15. Hemalata Mohapatra v. Bijay Kumar Pradhani, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 44 16. Khudia @ Khudiram Tudu v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 45 17. Midiyan Pani & Ors. v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 46 18. M/s. Jena Trading and Co. v. CT and GST Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 47 19. Ananda Ch. Sahu v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 48 20. Rabindra Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 49 21. Prafulla Chandra Mohapatra @ Prusty v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 50Judgments/Orders Reported‘Horizontal Quota’ For A Particular Social Category Can’t Be Filled By Candidates Of Other Social Category: Orissa High CourtCase Title: Prangya Paramita Harichandan v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 30The 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 CourtCase Title: Amrita Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 31The 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 ITATCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 32The 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 LongCase Title: Laxmi Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 33The 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...

Orissa High Court Monthly Digest: March 2023

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags