Orissa Court April 1960 Judgments
Hazuri Balabhadra Kuntia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ori192; [1962]44ITR782(Orissa)
Barman, J. 1. This is an assessee's application under Section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act arising out of R. A. No. 377 of 1955-56, challenging the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decision dated 21-12-1955 rejecting his application under Section 66(1) as having been out of time. The facts shortly stated are these: The assesses petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal hearing I. T. A. No. 2920 of 1954-55 for the assessment year 1953-54 which was partly dismissed on 23-5-1955. On June 2, 1955 the said order of dismissal was received by the petitioner. On 29-7-1955 the petitioner sent a reference application under Section 66(1) of the Act by post, addressed to the Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Branch, which wasreceived by it on 1-8-1955, that is, the date on which the prescribed sixty days' period of limitation expired. July 31, 1955 being a Sunday was a holiday. The following day on August 1, 1955 the petitioner sent by telegraphic money order the required fee of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Brajabandhu Nanda Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ori195; [1962]44ITR668(Orissa)
Barman, J. 1. These are three references under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, all at the instance of the assessee petitioner in the facts and circumstances hereinafter stated, relating to the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52. This Court by its order dated 6-11-1958 called upon the Income-tax Tribunal to state the case and to refer the following questions for decision of this Court. '(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was not sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. (2) Whether the delay in postal delivery can beconsidered as constituting sufficient cause for notpresenting the appeal within the prescribed period'. In pursuance of this order of the Court, a statementof case was submitted by the Income-tax Tribunalon 22-6-1959. Hence, these references which wereanalogously heard. 2. The matter arose in the following circumstances; on 5-2-1954, the assessee received the order of the Appellate Assistan...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Choudhary Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ori187
Barman, J. 1. The point involved in this reference tor decision of this Full Bench is one of limitation, arising out of two applications under Section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act (Act XI of 1922), -- S. J. C. No. 4 of 1956 relating to the assessment year 1950-51 and S. J. C. No. 5 of 1956 relating to the assessment year 1951-52. The facts, relevant for our purpose, are short and simple. In both the cases notice under Section 33(4) was received by the assessee on 17-6-1955 and the notice was dated 30-5-1955 informing him of the result of the appeal before the Tribunal -- The assessee sent the reference applications under Section 66(1) by registered post on 12-8-1955, and the applications were received by the Tribunal on 18-8-1955, while the last date for filing the reference applications already expired on 16-8-1955. The Tribunal accordingly rejected the applications as being out of time. 2. The only point for consideration is whether on construction of Section 66(1) of the Income-tax A...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Chowdhury Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and OrissA.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR93(Orissa)
BARMAN. J. - The point involved for decision of this full Bench is one of limitation, arising out of two applications under section 66(3) of Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S.J.C. No. 4 of 1956 relating of the assessment year 1950-51 and S.J.C. No. 5 of 1956 relating to the assessment year 1951-52. The facts relevant for our purpose are short and simple. In both the cases notice under section 33(4) was received by the assessee on June 17, 1955, and the notice was dated May 30, 1955, informing him of the result of the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee sent the reference applications under section 66(1) by registered post on August 12, 1955, and the application were received by the Tribunal on August 18, 1955, while the last date for filing the reference applications already expired on August 16, 1955. The Tribunal accordingly rejected the applications as being out of time.The only point for consideration is whether on construction of section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath Jiew Thakur and ors. Vs. Dambarudhar Pal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori156; 26(1960)CLT468
S.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants arising out of a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The plaintiff happens to be a Sikimi Tenant under the Orissa Tenancy Act and claims his rights to be hereditary rights. The cause of action for the suit is that he was dispossessed on 17th June 1955 by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 is the deity, indeed the superior landlord, and the other defendants are Marfatdars. It is to be noted, there was a previous-suit inter partes (Title Suit No. 44 of 1930) in which the appellate judgment (Ex. 10} was delivered on 22nd January, 1931 where the hereditary rights of the plaintiff's father were declared and possession restored.2. The defence was that the plaintiff's father was a mere Jaigirdar under the deity; he had surrendered the jaigiri lands in the year 1951, and as such, the suit is not maintainable.3. The Courts below have decreed the plaintiffs suit. It is manifest, the defence plea that ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Satyabadi Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori196
Narasimham, C.J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the State of Orissa against the decision of the Arbitrator, Hirakud Land Organization, Sambalpur, awarding certain specified sums as compensation to the various respondents whose lands were acquired in connection with the Hirakud Dam Project. The acquisition was made under the provisions of the Orissa (Development of Industriess, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Persons) Land Acquisition Act, 1948 (Orissa Act No. 18 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which provided for the speedy acquisition of lands for the Hirakud Dam Project and some other specified projects. Section 7 of the Act dealt with the method of determining the compensation payable to the owners of lands so acquired. If the parties did not reach an agreement as to the amount of compensation payable, that section required that a reference of the dispute may be made to an arbitrator to be appointed by the State Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Birupakshya Das Vs. Kunja Behari
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori104; 26(1960)CLT431
S.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for damages which has been assessed by the plaintiff at Rs. 210/- for three years. The plaintiff is the brother of the father of the present defendant. Admittedly the disputed land belonged to Dibakar, the father of the defendant, and the defendant himself. The plaintiff bases his title on the basis of an unregistered sale-deed dated 27-5-1940 (Ex. 1) which purports to be for a consideration of Rs. 250/-.It is to be mentioned here that the case is coming from the district of Sambalpur and is governed by the Central Provinces Tenancy Act. The plaintiff's version is that the transaction, which was executed by Dibakar on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor son Junjabehari, was for legal necessity, and as such is binding against the present defendant Kunjabehari. The plaintiff's further case is t...
Tag this Judgment!Brajamohan Panda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori124
Misra, J.1.The plaintiff's suit of 1951, claiming damage at Rs. 60,000/- against the State of Orissa, having been dismissed, he has Come up in the present appeal. The plaintiff's case is that villages Ranga-lipali and Raghunathpali in the district of Sambal-pur belonged to him; that there was a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) issued by the Government of Orissa for carrying survey and other allied acts in connection with the Hirakud Dam Project, as provided by Section 4(2) of the said Act; that the officers authorised in the said notification to carry out the survey, instead of confining their actions to the actual survey, entered upon the plaintiff's land from April to October 1948 and caused unwarranted damages to it and fell trees, for which no payment was made or tendered; that in village Kengalipali, trees worth Rs. 42, 766-8-0 were cut., and in village Raghunathpali, trees worth Rs. 14,271/- were cut, Besides, certain pits were d...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. S.S. Samal and Ali Mahammad
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori88
ORDERG.C. Das, J. 1. The defendant Government in this application raised the sole question whether the learned Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, had the jurisdiction to order the appointment of a fresh arbitrator while setting aside the award given by the arbitrator, Sri Ripudaman Singh in Title Suit No. 30 of 1955.2. The facts are short and simple. The opposite party Messrs. S. S. Samal and Ali Mahammad entered into an agreement with the Union Government for executing certain works under the Hirakud Dam Project. Disputes having arisen between them the matter was referred to the sole Arbitrator, Sri Ripudaman Singh as contemplated under clause 25 of the agreement. The arbitrator gave his award in due course. The opposite party filed a suit (T. S. No. 30 of 1956J challenging the said award given by the aforementioned arbitrator on the ground of misconduct. The learned Subordinate Judge set aside the said award by his order dated 21-9-1957. The order passed by him was;'The award given by the...
Tag this Judgment!Lingaraj Routrai Vs. Lakshmidhar Routrai and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-01-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ693
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1.This is a petition, in revision challenging an order of withdrawal under Section 494 Cr.P.C. dated 8-5-59 passed by a First Class Magistrate of Puri. The petitioner claimed to have taken fishery lease of two tanks, named Padan Pada and Hazari Pokhari from Ghoradia Gram Punchayet. He alleged that some of the members of the opposite party forcibly caught fish from Hazari Pokhari on 19-12-57 and that he filed a complaint against them before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Puri on the basis or which a regular case was started against them.2. As regards Padan Pada tank he alleged that on 11-6-58 at about noon the opposite party came in a mob and prevented him from catching fish from that tank. He reported the incident at the Delang Police Station and in due course charge sheet under Section 143 I.P.C. was filed against the members of the opposite party. The case was, in. due course, transferred to the file of Shri M.D. Pradhan for disposal. On 3-6-59 the Prose...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›