Orissa Court April 1960 Judgments
Hrudananda Sahu and ors. Vs. the State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori81
Das, J. 1. By these several applications the constitutional validity of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 (Orissa Act 3 of 1957) was challenged by the respective petitioners. The point involved was common to all the petitions. Accordingly, they were heard together and are governed by the common Judgment. 2. In order to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and for the establishment of suitable markets therefor inside the State of Orissa, Orissa Act III of 1957(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was passed and came into force on February 8, 1957. Under Section 3 of the Act the State Government issued a notification declaring its intention of regulating the purchase and sale of certain agricultural commodities including Jute and subsequently issued a notification under Sub-section (i) of Section 4 of the Act bearing No. 10744-NI-N4/59 (D) dated 26th/27th May, 1959, declaring an area around Kendupatna to be a market area within ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Balaram Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC480(Orissa)
R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, (as amended by Orissa Act XX of 1957) the following question has been referred to this Court for opinion :-Whether the cross objection filed by the State in the present case is maintainable in law The admitted facts are as follows :-Prior to the amendment made to the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Orissa Act XIV of 1947) by the Amending Act of 1957 (Orissa Act XX of 1957) the Collector of Commercial Taxes had revisional jurisdiction over the appellate orders of subordinate Sales Tax Authorities. The petitioner before us had filed a revision before him on 23rd October, 1954, in Revision Case No. 1094 of 1954-55 and it remained pending in his file. In the meantime Orissa Act XX of 1957 came into force. In consequence of certain amendments made by this Amending Act to Section 23 of the parent Act a new Tribunal known as the Sales Tax Tribunal was constituted and it was conferred second appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!Khubram Asram Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1960
Reported in: 26(1960)CLT599; [1961]12STC582(Orissa)
R.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. The following two questions of law have been referred to this Court by the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act.(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the assessing officer was not justified in making best of judgment assessments for the quarters ending on 31st December, 1952, 31st March, 1953, and 30th September, 1953.(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the assessing officer was not competent to add anything more to the gross turnover or taxable turnover, as returned by the applicant than the amount of sale actually detected to have been suppressed.2. So far as question no. (2) is concerned Mr. R. N. Misra for the petitioner stated that he would not press this question. In view of this concession, it is unnecessary to answer this question, and the order of the Tribunal will stand.3. Question no. (1) arises in the following manner. The. petitioner was keeping the mercantile system of ac...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Jiew Thakur and anr. Vs. Surendra Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori102
Mohapatha, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the FirsE Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Sri B. Misra, Subordinate Judge of Balasore, arising out of a suit for declaration of tide of the deity Govinda Jiew Thakur, plaintiff No. 1 and tor recovery of possession of the disputed properties with an acreage 19,99 acres. Plaintiff No. 1, the deity, is situated in Bhadrak and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the trustees representing the deity and were appointed as trustees by the Endowment Commissioner.The : contesting defendants 1 to 18 are the transferees in respect of the disputed properties on the basis of; three sale-deeds and all of them being of 22nd January, 1927. One of the sale deeds was in favour of defendants 1 to 3 that is, Jena transferees; the second one was in favour of the defendants 4 to 8, that is Rout transferees; and the third was in favour of defendants 9 to 18, that is, Misra transferees.Defendant No. 19 is the Ex-Mahant who has since been removed and plai...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Sakhawat HossaIn Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori89; 26(1960)CLT480
Narasimham, C.J. 1. The only point for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal under the following circumstances :-2. The petitioner was defendant No. 3 in Money Suit No. 241 of 1954 in the Court of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. In his decree the learned Judge directed that the petitioner (defendant No. 3), defendant No. 1 and defendants 4 to 4/d should pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 13,000/- as claimed, with some extra amount. The petitioner (defendant No. 3) alone filed the present First Appeal No. 12 of 1948 with a court-fee of Rs. 268-12 nP. valuing the appeal for the purpose of court-fee at Rs. 2000/-.3. The appeal was filed on 26th February 1958 and was registered in due course. The Stamp Reporter pointed out that the court-fee was deficient to the extent of Rs. 1113-12 and that the valuation for the purpose of the appeal should have been noted as Rs. 13795/- as in...
Tag this Judgment!Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori136
Das, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 1, the State of Orissa, represented by the Commissioner of Sales-tax; Orissa, not to require the opposite party No. 2, Chief Engineer, Hirakud Dam Project, to make any payment towards the sales tax and to refund the amount under attachment. 2-3. The petitioner is a contractor under theHirakud Dam Project for carrying on business of certain earth work and carriage work during theperiod 1951-55. Petitioner was assessed to sales-tax for the quarters ending with 31st March, 1952to 31st March, 1954. He, however, did not receiveeither the several orders of assessment or thenotices of demand as required under the provisionsof the Orissa Sales-tax Act, and the rules thereunder. He subsequently came to know that as aconsequence of these assessments he was assessedto a total tax of Rs. 19,326.44np, Eventually hecame to know of this assessment when c...
Tag this Judgment!Bhubanananda Mohanty Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-19-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC649(Orissa)
R.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the certificate proceedings pending against the petitioner, for realization of arrears of sales tax and penalty, imposed by the Sales Tax Officer, Puri, on the ground that the petitioner is not liable to pay any sales tax.2. The petitioner was a dealer in paddy. He failed to submit any return to the Sales Tax Officer, Puri, in respect of his turnover, for the two quarters ending 31st December, 1953, and 31st March, 1954. Thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice under Section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, but the petitioner neither filed a return nor produced any accounts relating to his turnover. Then the Sales Tax Officer proceeded to assess him to the best of his judgment. He called for the records of the Puri Civil Supplies Office and found that the petitioner had received certain payments from Government for supply of paddy and also for supply of gunny bags. Fro...
Tag this Judgment!South Eastern Railway Vs. Epari Satyanarayana
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori141
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. The defendant railway is the petitioner in this Civil Revision directed against the judgment of the S. C. C. Judge, Berhampur, in S. C. C. Suit No. 120 of 1957 whereby the learned Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 373/- for alleged loss of some consignment of medicines stated to have been entrusted to the defendant railway at Howrah to be delivered to the plaintiff consignee at Berhampur, (Ganjam) on the South Eastern Railway. 2. The facts, shortly, are these : On August 20, 1956, the said consignment of medicine was booked at Howrah Station. Four days thereafter on August 24, 1956, delivery of the case containing the consignment was made at Berhampur. The weight of the goods as per railway receipt was stated to be 17 seers but the weight found at the time of delivery was 9 1/2 seers, that is to say, 7 1/2 seers short. Ext. 4, the shortage certificate, reads as follows :'Case arrived in sound and intact condition and delivered under D/R. On demand reweighme...
Tag this Judgment!Krutibas Sahu Vs. Madhab Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori48
ORDERS. Barman, J. 1. In this Civil Revision, the plaintiff is the petitioner in revision, directed against an order of the learned S. C. C. Judge Cuttack, in S. C. C. Suit No. 73 of 1957 dismissing the plaintiff's suit on a handnote dated March 15, 1954 for a sum of Rs. 240/-payable with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, the total claim being Rs. 320/-inclusive of interest. The defence taken by the defendant in the written statement is shortly this : A blank piece of paper with signature and thumb impression on revenue stamp was given by the defendant to the village Punches for settlement of a dispute between the defendant and one Kunjaban Das over the offering of bhog to Gopalji Thakur where they were both priests. The blank paper is stated to have been given to one Dhruba Sahu -- one of the Punches -- about 15 or 16 years ago. The dispute between the two parties was subsequently settled but the blank paper was not returned. Later on, the plaintiff, out ofenmity ...
Tag this Judgment!Anandalal, Proprietor of Laxmichanda Sitaram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori108
S. Barman, J.1. In this second appeal the plaintiff,--a claimant against the Railways for short delivery of goods,--is the appellant from a reversing decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, whereby he reversed a decision of the learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack and dismissed the plaintiffs suit against the Railways.2. The point involved in this appeal is one of limitation under Article 31 of the Limitation Act, in a suit against the Railways as carrier, for compensation for short-delivery in respect of a portion of a certain consignment of one bale of woollen goods, in the circumstances hereinafter stated. Theplaintiff carrying on business in cloth, and other articles indented certain woollen goods from certain woollen Mills despatched from Cawnpur Railway Station situated on the line of Northern Railway to be delivered ta him at Cuttack Railway Station on the line of South Eastern Railway.On December 30, 1950 the plaintiff obtained open delivery of the said c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »