K. N. SAIKIA, L. M. SHARMA, T. K. THOMMEN
Orient Paper And Industries LTD. : Straw Products LTD. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Orissa – Respondent
JUDGMENT
THOMMEN, J.:— These appeals by special leave arise from the judgments of the Orissa High Court in 0.J.C. No. 3235 of 1988 and 0.J.C. No. 3100 of 1988. The High Court dismissed the appellantswrit petitions praying for a declaration that the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981 (Act 22 of 1981) and the Notification No. 6F-10/ 88/ 21691 / FFAH dated September 21, 1988 issued under S. 1(3) of the said Act have no application to the contracts entered into between the appellants and the State of Orissa and for a direction to prohibit the respondent State from enforcing the provisions of the said Act in pursuance of the said notification in respect of the said contracts and to allow the appellants to cut and remove bamboos from the areas covered by the contracts. One of the appellants in C.A. No. 4347 of 1988, namely, Straw Products Ltd. filed Writ Petition No. 474 of 1989 under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a declaration that Ordinance No. 1 of 1989, the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) (Amendment) Act. 1989 (Act 4 of 1989), Notification No. 6F-10/ 88/ 21691 / FFAH dated 21-9-88 (S. R.O. No. 666 of 1988) and Notification No.6F-10/88/ 21693/FFAH dated 21-9
Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of A.P.
Akadasi Padhan v. State of Orissa
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan, Delhi v. Union of India
Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara
State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.