Orissa Court December 1948 Judgments
Biseswar Misra Vs. the King
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-17-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ650
Jagannadhadas, J.1.The accused in this case who is the appellant before ua has been convicted of an offence under Section 366, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Es. be O and in default to another six months rigorous imprisonment. The case against him is that he kidnapped a minor girl, Asli by name who was below 16 in age and who is the married wife of one Gulthu Singh with the in-tantion of seducing her for sexual intercourse. The prosecution case is as follows:2. Asli, P. w. 13, is the married wife of one Gulthu Singh, p. w. l. She is below 16 years of age and was living with her husband at a place called Dhandatopa, There was a quarrel between them on a certain Friday, 17th January 1947 and as a result of that quarrel the girl left her husband's house on the morning of the next day 18th January 1947, when her husband was away from the house'.having gone to his work. He found her missing when he returned back to his house at 12 noon. The...
Tag this Judgment!Uchhab Bhol and ors. Vs. Sri Lord Jagannath and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Ori80
Ray, C.J.1. This appeal by the defendants arises out of an action in tort for recovery of damages of Rs 7937-4-6 only. The defendants are 92 in number and impleaded as joint tort-feasors. The gist of the tort consists in 'a conspiracy to injure'. The main allegation in relation thereto is contained in para. 12 of the plaint:That on account of the said strained relations between the parties, the defendants entered into a conspiracy amongst themselves with an avowed object of flatting and carrying away the paddy crops from the disputed lands raised by the plaintiffs with their own ploughs.2. According to the earlier paragraphs of the plaint, the aforesaid malevolent conspiracy was but an easy and natural outcome of the Erbag. Village Krushak-Sangha under the leader-ship of one Mohan Das of which the purpose was to defy and disregard the privileges, so far enjoyed by the landlords, in their Nijdakhali lands so as to facilitate acquisition of tenancy rights therein.3. Common object of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan Samantarai Vs. Brajasunder Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-16-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Ori51
Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by plaintiff 1 in a suit for declaration of his title as occupancy ryot in respect of 'ka' schedule lands being a part of holding No. 297. The holding admittedly be-longed to defendant 2 and the part, in dispute, was purchased from him by the appellant on 21st February 1927. The rest of the holding had been sold to plaintiffs 2 and 3 who, however, have not come up in appeal. Defendant 1 who is a purchaser at revenue sale of the touzis within which the holding lies, maintained a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against defendant 2 and brought the holding to sale in execution of the decree and purchased it. He took out delivery of possession through Court. The plaintiff feeling himself disturbed came to Court with a prayer for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession. The plaintiff had also, in order to make out a good title as against the landlord, pleaded that he bad taken the consent of the then...
Tag this Judgment!Giridhari Biswal Vs. Golak Biswal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-14-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Ori27
Narasimham, J.1. This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the concurrent decisions of the Munsif of Jaipur and the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack dismissing his suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain property on the ground that he is the adopted son of one Bira Biswal.2. Defendant 1 is admittedly the natural born son of Bira Biswal. The plaintiff alleged that defendant 1 was given in adoption to Bira's own brother Nilamani about 0 years ago. Subsequently two other natural born sons of Bira died and then it was alleged that about 25 years ago Bira adopted the plaintiff as his son. It was further alleged that the plaintiff and defendant 1 remained joint till about 1913 when there was a partition of the joint family property. The suit was necessitated by the action of defendant 1 in mortgaging one item of the joint family property in favour of defendant 2. Defendant 1's main contention was that neither was he given in adoption to Nilamani nor was...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax Vs. S. Sen and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-09-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Ori89
Ray, C.J. 1. The proceeding arises out of two applications, consolidated, because of the facts being identical, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Excess Profits Tax, Bihar and Orissa, under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act for stating a case and opinion of this Court on the following (three) questions of law: (1) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in asking the income-tax Officer to assess the assessee on receipts basis with regard to contracts carried on and completed during the year of account? (2) Whether the reduction of the estimated profit rate from 40 per cent, adopted by the Income-tax Officer to 30 per cent, by the Tribunal on the ground that 30 per cent was the general rate adopted by it in the cases of other assessees doing the same kind of contract works during the same assessment year was legal? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in not applying Rule 9 of Schedule 1 of the Excess Profits...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax, Bihar and Orissa Vs ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-09-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR355(Orissa)
RAY, C.J - The proceeding arises out of two application consolidated because of the facts being identical, by the Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess profits Tax, Bihar and Orissa, under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess profits tax Act for the stating a case and a case stated for the opinion of this Court on the following three question of law :-'(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in asking the Income-tax Officer to assess the assessee on receipts basis with regard to contract carried on and completed during the year of account ?(2) Whether the reduction of the estimated profit rate form 40 per cent. adopted by the Income-tax Officer to 30 per cent. by the Tribunal on the ground that 30 per cent was the general rate adopted by it in the cases of other assessees doing the same kind of contract works during the same assessment year was legal (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in not applying rule 9 of Schedule I of the...
Tag this Judgment!Bansidhar Onkarmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-06-1948
Reported in: 15(2009)CLT94; [1949]17ITR247(Orissa)
NARASIMHAM, J. - The question that has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Branch, Patna to us for opinion as follows :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 8,675 is allowable either as a trading loss or as an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business within the meaning of Section 10(2)(xii) of the Act ?'[Presumably Section 10(2)(xii) of the Act ?The facts found by the Tribunal are these :-The assessee carries on the business of selling yarn, speculating on cotton and money-lending. He claimed deduction of Rs. 8,675 in respect of the accounting year commencing from October 21, 1941, and ending on December 8, 1942, on the ground that the said sum was stolen from the iron safe inside his shop by one Jauhar Mal who was a relation of the assessee and who was also working as the accountant of his firm during the year in question. The shop of the assessee used to be closed at about 8 p.m., and the iro...
Tag this Judgment!Banshidhar Onkarmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Ori109
Narasimham, J.1. The question that has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta branch, Patna, to us for opinion is as follows:'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the sum of RS. 8675/- is allowable either as a trading loss or an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business within the meaning of Section 10(2) (xii) of the Act' (Presumably Section 10 (2) (xii) is an error for Section 10 (2) (xv).2. The facts found by the Tribunal are these:3. The assessee carries on the business of selling yarn, seculating on cotton and money lending. He claimed deduction of Rs. 8,675/- in respect of the accounting year commencing from 21-10-1941 and ending on 8-12-1942 on the ground that the said sum was stolen from the iron-safe inside his shop by one Jhaharmal who was a relation of the assessee and who was also working as the accountant of his firm during the year in question. The shop of the assessee used to be closed at about 8 ...
Tag this Judgment!Giridharilal Seetaram and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Bihar a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-03-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR282(Orissa)
RAY, C.J. - This arises out of a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The simple facts are that the assessee firm had been registered as a partnership firm for years preceding the assessment year in question. Under the law, every partnership firm is required to renew its registration for every year of assessment. In the present case, the application for registration, or to speak more properly, for renewals of registration, was filed on June 30, 1944. One of the partners (Reghunath) died on February 27, 1944, according to the terms of the partnership agreement (7th para.) it was agreed between the founders of the firm that the partnership business would not stand dissolved but shall continue to be carried on by the surviving partners with survivors or heirs or executors or administrator of the deceased partner as the case may be. The application for renewals of registration was signed by Kishorilal, son of Raghunath. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpataru Das Vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments Adn ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-03-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Ori46
Ray, C.J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of, Cuttack returning the plaint of a suit under Section 64 Orissa Religious Hindu Endowments Act, (Act IV [4] of 1939) to the plaintiff to be presented to the-proper Court. As this order is appelable under Order 43, Rule 1 (a), Civil P.C., this revision should be treated as miscellaneous appeal. No question o deficiency of court fee arises as the court-fee already paid is sufficient for an appeal against an order.2. The only contention that arises in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge had, the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The contention has relevance to certain provisions of the Act. Section 64 provides that if any dispute-arises over an order passed by the Religious Endowments Commissioner as to whether the, temple or muth is an institution as defined in the Act or whether it is an excepted temple, the party affected by such an order may institute a suit in 'the Court' to modif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›