Abhisek Acharya & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 120
Smrutikant Rath & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 121
Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals v. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 122
Cases Reported This Week:
Case Title: Abhisek Acharya & Ors. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 120
The Orissa High Court denied to discharge a number of persons accused of forcefully entering and causing damage to properties at the official residence of Mr. V.K. Pandian, IAS & Private Secretary to the Chief Minister of Odisha Mr. Naveen Pattnaik. While upholding the order of the Trial Court, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,
"After going through the case records minutely particularly the statements of the witnesses, the seizures in the case, it cannot be said that there is absence of prima facie material against the petitioners. The learned trial Court has also found that there are materials available in the case record that on 10.02.2018 at about 10.00 a.m., the petitioners entered into the official residential quarters of Mr. V.K. Pandian raising hulla and assaulted the security guard, abused the informant in filthy language, damaged the flower pots so also glass pans of the quarters and the motorcycle and seizure of those damaged articles were made."
Case Title: Smrutikant Rath & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 121
The Orissa High Court held that an order taking cognizance and issuing summons for offences alleged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is an 'appealable order' in terms of Section 14-A(1) of the Act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra further held that such order cannot be classified as 'interlocutory order' as the same qualifies to be an 'intermediate order'.
"…this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused person is not clearly an interlocutory order, but an intermediate order. Therefore, the same is appealable in view of the provisions contained under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act."
Case Title: Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals v. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 122
The Orissa High Court ruled that there is no requirement under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to file a separate application for condonation of delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the A&C Act, since the prescribed and the extended periods are both provided under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha held that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (2018) has declared the law and has interpreted the provisions of Section 34(5) of the A&C Act, which requires a party to issue a prior notice to the opposite party before filing an application to set aside an arbitral award, as being 'directory' in nature and not mandatory. Therefore, the High Court ruled that the law thus stated by the Supreme Court applies retrospectively since it is a declaration on the discovery of the correct principle.
Important Developments of the Week:
Case Title: Deep Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 28906 of 2021
The Orissa High Court came down heavily on the authorities of Utkal University for delay in publication of results of B.A. LL.B. semester examinations. A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra was hearing a writ petition filed by a final year student of University Law College, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner had approached the Court with a prayer to get the semester results published in a time-bound manner. He relied on an order of Odisha Higher Education Department which required the University to end the final (10th) semester exams and publish results thereof latest by 15th August 2022.
At a point of hearing, counsel for Utkal University submitted that the inadvertent delay is owing to the unavailability of sufficient number of staffs in the University. This irked Justice Sarangi, who orally observed,
"You are not filling-up the posts (of faculties) and paying meagre salaries to guest faculties and relying on them for teaching. Stop that University. You are only concerned about how to get TA, vehicles, houses. You are not concerned about the education of students. Students are paying fees. The institution is running through the students' money."
Two senior judicial officers were sworn-in as Judges of the Orissa High Court by Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar on Saturday (13th August) afternoon after their warrants of appointment were issued by the President of India on Friday. Justices Gourishankar Satapathy and Chittaranjan Dash served as the Director, Odisha Judicial Academy and Registrar General of the Orissa High Court respectively, immediately before their elevation.
Case Title: Binayak Subudhi v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 11144 of 2022
A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, comprising Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik, granted four weeks' time to the Odisha State Bar Council ('OSBC') as a last opportunity to file its reply rejoinder in a petition filed by Advocate Binayak Subudhi, wherein he has challenged the 'exorbitant fees' charged by the Council to enrol law graduates in the State Bar Roll as advocates. Notably, the OSBC charges around Rs. 42,100/- to enrol general category law graduates, who are below the age of 25 years. The amount was shown to be the 'highest' among all the State Bar Councils of the nation.