Orissa Court October 1950 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dake Bagarti and ors. Vs. Mukunda Khamari and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori101
Ray, C.J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 2 in a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands appertaining to raiyati holding No. 70 of mouza Sahala, described in all material details in a schedule attached to the plaint.2. Defendant 1 was the owner of the said lands. He transferred them on 23 4-1941 by a sale deed to the plaintiff for consideration. The plaintiff stepped into possession of the said lands along with other lands similarly sold to him by defendant 1 aforesaid. Defendant 1 later gave the same lands to defendant 2 who has since taken possession thereof and inspite of repeated demands did not give it up. The suit was contested by both defendants 1 and 2. The present contest mainly centres round the priority of title of either the plaintiff or defendant 2. Defendant 2's case is that defendant 1 and his son surrendered the suit lands to Lambardar Gountia on 30.5-1941 who, in his turn, on 31-5-1941 for consideration settled the suit lands and other lands with this defenda...
Chairman, District Board and ors. Vs. C.H. Achaya
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori124
Jagannadha Das, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in these two second appeals. They arise out of two suits O.S. 11/46 and O.S. 82/46 on the file of the District Munsif of Puri tried analogously (simultaneously?). The plaintiff and the defendants are the same in both the suits and they relate substantially to the same matter. There was a common judgment in both the suits and the appeals therefrom to the lover appellate Court were also heard analogously (simultaneously?) and dealt with by a common judgment. The suits had been decreed by the trial Court and the said decrees were confirmed in appeal. Defendant 1 in both the suits who is appellant in these appeals is the Chairman, District Board of Puri, Defendants 2 and 3 in both the suits who are appellants 2 and 3 before as are lessees from the District Board of a portion of plot No. 736 in Mouza Kudiarai. Defendant 2 is a minor represented by his mother and guardian, defendant 3. That plot is a road side land abutting on the Distri...
Ramanarayana Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Ori112
Ray, C.J.1. These cases are heard analogously and should be governed by this order. The assessee has asked us to issue a writ of mandamus to the Income-tax Tribunal to state a case on a point of law arising out of their order. 2. The circumstances are that the assessee, in carrying on business, is in the habit of borrowing money for capital purposes, & under Section 10 (2) (iii), he is entitled to a deduction, in computation of assessable profits or gains of business, of the amount of interest paid. There is no doubt that in this case the amount of interest nearing about Rs. 11,000/- & odd was paid for the respective assessment years to one Ghanashyam Das. This Ghanashyam Das, creditor, is a resident of Nayagarh State which was outside 'British India' at the time of assessment. For the purpose of this case, he should be considered to be a nonresident. The proviso to Section 10 (2) (iii), provides for exceptions to such deduction. It says that no allowance (for the interest paid) shall ...
Banamali Behera and ors. Vs. Padmalabha Misra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori262
Panigrahi, J.1. It is not necessary to reserve judgment & keep back my decision from the parties in this case. The facts giving rise to the appeal are simple but; the law argued at the Bar is not as simple.2. The pltf resp. filed a suit in ejectment out of which this appeal arises-in respect of an extent of 136 of. an acre in C. S. Plot no. 2007 in Cuttack Town, against the defts. alleging that they were darpattadars under him in respect of this property. The pltf. served a notice to quit on 19-4-46 & filed the suit a month later. His case was that the deft, is a tanant-at-will & is liable to be evicted at any time. The deft, pleaded that he had a house on the suit holding for at least 70 years & had acquired permanent occupancy right in the land, that the notice to quit was neither proper nor duly served upon him, & that he is protected from eviction by virtue of the recent amendment to Schedule 36, Orissa Tenancy Act, by AOL X [10) of 1946. Exhibit a, the Current Settlement Khatian s...
Ramnarayan Chiranjilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Oriss ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-03-1950
Reported in: 16(1950)CLT134; [1951]19ITR30(Orissa)
RAY, C.J. - These cases are heard analogously and should be governed by this order. The assessee has asked us to issue a writ of mandamus to the Income-tax Tribunal to state a case on a point of law arising out of their order.2. The circumstances are that the assessee, in carrying on business, is in the habit of borrowing money for capital purposes, and under Section 10(2)(iii), he is entitled to a deduction, in computation of assessable profits or gains of business, of the amount of interest nearing about Rs. 11,000 and odd was paid for the respective assessment years to one Ghanashyam Das. This Ghanashyam Das, creditor, is a resident of Nayagarh State which was outside 'British India' at the time of assessment. For the purpose of this case, he should be considered to be a non-resident. The proviso to Section 10(2)(iii) provides for exception to such deduction. It says that no allowance (for the interest paid) shall be made under this clause in any case for any interest chargeable und...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›