Orissa Court August 1972 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.
Joyanarayan Panigrahi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR102(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961. The question referred to us is:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income-tax authorities were justified in including the sum of Rs. 16,460 on receipt basis?'2. The facts of the case are these: A Hindu joint family of which Joyanarayan Panigrahi is the karta owned properties in the villages of Pudapara and Baunsamura located in the district of Sambalpur. Under the provisions of Orissa Act 18 of 1948, 47.15 acres of land in village Pudapara were acquired by the State of Orissa for the Hirakud Dam Project. This acquisition was covered by two independent notifications, one dated November 9, 1951, and the other dated March 28, 1955. Possession of these lands was taken on June 11, 1956, and on June 7, 1957, the competent authority offered compensation of Rs. 23,804-3-0 under Rule 5 of the rules made under the said Act. 3.24 acres of land in the other village came to be notified for...
State of Orissa Vs. Narahari Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: 38(1972)CLT1203; [1973]30STC558(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This court by order dated 2nd February, 1971, called upon the Tribunal at the instance of the State of Orissa represented by the Commissioner of Sales Tax to state a case referring the following questions of law for determination of this court :(1) Did the opposite party effect any sale of timber at all?(2) If he did effect such a sale outside the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Circle, is the opposite party entitled to take the objection of jurisdiction without advancing the same at the earliest opportunity before the Sales Tax Officer ?From the statement of facts by the Tribunal and the orders in appeal, these facts may be noted. The assessee, a resident of Palalahara in the District of Dhenkanal is a forest contractor. Notice was issued to him under Section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act in respect of quarters ending 31st March, 1959, 30th June, 1959, 31st December, 1960, 31st March, 1961, 30th June, 1961, 31st December, 1962, 31st March, 1963, 3...
State of Orissa Vs. Rama Pradhan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-24-1972
Reported in: 38(1972)CLT964; 1973CriLJ734
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application made under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the State of Orissa for vacating the order made by the learned Sessions Judge. Koraput, admitting the opposite parties 1 to 13 to bail pending trial. The opposite parties have been committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 302/34 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Bail was granted by the learned trial Judge by his order dated 23.3.1972 to 17 accused persons including all the opposite parties in the case. The informant came before this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 55 of 1972 and asked for cancellation of the bail. On 12.5.1972, this Court vacated the order by saying-.The learned Sessions Judge has not discussed the individual case of these persons as to whether they are entitled to bail on the basis of evidence; but by a general observation he has released them all on bail. His observation is to t...
Chandrakanta Pani Vs. Kamalalochan Pani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori68
S.K. Ray, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff from the reversing decision dated 5-7-1968 of Sri B.K. Misra, Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, passed in T.A. No. 68 of 1965.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title to 0.200 decimals of land(Kha schedule), confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession, permanent injunction and for recovery of damages of Rs. 20. The suit land, measuring 0.200 is set out in Kha schedule to the plaint. Kha schedule is the total extent of land in Khata No. 29. Kha schedule is a part of Ka schedule. Entire Khata No. 29 was Bahel land in respect of which defendant No. 9, Saraswati Dibya was the recorded proprietor. Defendant No. 9 executed and registered a lease deed in favour of Ram Mallik Bari Mallik (defendant No. 7) and Das Mallik (defendant No. 8) in respect of the suit properties (Schedule Kha) on 5-6-1949 (Exhibit 5), By mutual arrangement amongst the lessees suit properties were allotted to the exclu...
Bira Mallik Vs. Chaitan Mallik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori102; 38(1972)CLT1004
ORDERS.K. Ray, Actg. C.J. 1. This revision is by the defendant and arises out of a suit for partition which the plaintiff-opposite party sought to carve out his moiety share in the suit-property allotting the balance half to the petitioner.2. The plaintiff's case was that all the ancestral properties of the parties had been partitioned by metes and bounds excepting the suit-property which is the homestead of the parties. The petitioner in his written statement pleaded that the lands set out in Schedule Ka of the written statement were also the joint family property of the parties, and so liable to partition. Since all the joint family properties had not been included in the partition suit, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, one issue was framed as to whether the properties given in Schedule Ka of the written statement had been partitioned amongst the members of the family previously and whether all the joint family properties liable to partition, have been brought into h...
Ram Chandra Badrinarayan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-1972
Reported in: [1974]33STC83(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 24(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This court called upon the Tribunal to refer the following question of law and state a case for determination of the said question:Whether the proviso to Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) has been violated by sale of mung and chana in the shape of mung dal and besan2. The assessee is a registered dealer bearing No. CUI 1318. When he came to be assessed for the quarter ending 30th June, 1963, the Sales Tax Officer found that the petitioner had purchased mung, chana, biri and peas by giving declaration as required under the Act that he would resell such goods in the State of Orissa and had thus been exempted from payment of sales tax. Subsequently, he converted some mung and biri to dal. Similarly, he converted chana and peas to besan. To the extent the assessee converted the goods purchased on the basis of declarations into either dal or besan the assessing officer took action...
Barbil Workers Union Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ546Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. The Barbil Workers Union has asked for a writ of certiorari to quash the order made by the Union of India under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for a writ of mandamus to dispose of the matter afresh. On 17-1-1971, the petitioner-union raised the following demands:(a) Consequent upon the implementation of the recommendation of the Central Wage Board on Iron Ore Mining Industry the emoluments of skilled workmen became more than Rs. 500 and, therefore, the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923 was no more applicable to them. Consequently an insurance scheme was necessary to be introduced to cover risks of accidents arising in course of employment as was in vogue in respect of officers.(b) The gratuity scheme of 1959 should be revised keeping in view the recommendations of the Central Wage Board.(c) The workmen be paid the railway fare for themselves and the members of their families once a year ...
Orissa Fibre Vs. the Orissa State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori104
R.N. Misra, J. 1. A partnership firm -- M/s. Orissa Fibre runs a factory near Sakhigopal in the District of Puri for manufacture of coir products and fibre materials. It entered into an agreement with the Orissa State Electricity Board -- opposite party No, 1 for supply of electric energy to the factory. The agreement was dated 9-7-1964 and was to be enforced for three years. In terms of that agreement, the petitioner undertook to consume a minimum quantity of energy being 131.75 KVA at the rate of Rs. 5-50 per KVA which amounted to Rs. 722/- per month. In January, 1965, supply of energy began. In November. 1966, the petitioner was required to pay the minimum charge of Rs. 2,093,28 per month. The petitioner protested against the revision of rates made unilaterally by the Board. When the Board took the stand that the higher rate was the outcome of the revised tariff, the petitioner raised a dispute and wanted the matter to be referred to arbitration in terms of the agreement. On 15-11-1...
Baidhar Behera and ors. Vs. Dibyasingha Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-1972
Reported in: 38(1972)CLT1160; 1973CriLJ738
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari at the instance of the three petitioners who were members of the first party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The preliminary order under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code was drawn up on 26.7.1968. The disputed property with an area of 3 acres appertains to plot numbers 1000 and 1000/ 1889. On 14.1.1969, a third party laid claim and on his own petition was added. The preliminary order, however, was not altered by the learned Magistrate nor was a fresh order drawn up, the learned Magistrate was unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession on the date of the preliminary order. Accordingly he referred the dispute to the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction for determination of the dispute as provided under Section 146(1) of the Code. Before the Munsif no further evidence was offered. On the basis of the affidavits and documents placed by the parties before th...
Bauri Bessoyi and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Endowments and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori106
R.N. Misra, J. 1. The petitioners challenge the order of the Commissioner of Endowments made under Section 25 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act (2 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing the issue of a requisition to the Collector of the district to deliver possession of the disputed property to the trustee, the opposite party No. 3. on behalf of the deity the opposite party No. 2. According to the petitioners they were inducted into the land (46.126 acres) long before vesting of the estate under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (1 of 1952) which took place on 15-7-1955. In 1952 when the record-of-rights were finally published the petitioners were given a Patta for the land wherein they have been shown to be the occupancy tenants of the property. After the final record was published a suit was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Berhampur (T. S. No. 6 of 1955) for a declaration that the defendants had not acquired the occupancy right. That suit was compromi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »