Orissa Court September 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.
State of Orissa Vs. Vijoy Laxmi Trading Co.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-29-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC438(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. The following question was asked to be referred by this court by order dated 8th July, 1971, at the instance of the assessee under Section 24(2)(b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act):Whether the liability to pay tax under Section 4 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act accrues on the date of the application for obtaining the certificate of registration, or from the date when the certificate of registration is granted ?2. The facts giving rise to the dispute are these: The assessee commenced business in January, 1959 and applied for registration under Section 9-A of the Act on 29th May, 1959. On 10th June, 1960, the certificate of registration was granted. Upon independent enquiry, the taxing authorities were satisfied that the assessse attracted liability for assessment in terms of Section 4 of the Act from 1st April, 1960. Assessment for the quarter ending 30th June, 1960, was taken up and the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, assessed the asse...
Orissa Textile Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Chintamani Sahu and Brothers an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-27-1972
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas76(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated February 17, 1972, passed by our learned brother, Mr. Justice Patra, as company judge in Company Act Case No. 5 of 1970. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 3 in the Company Act case are the appellants and all other parties have been impleaded as respondents. This appeal purports to be under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court read with Clause 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948. Though in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal, it had also been shown to be under the Companies Act of 1956 and the Rules made thereunder, Mr. Patnaik for the appellants concedes that no appeal against the impugned order would lie under the Act or its Rules.2. Company Act Case No. 5 of 1970, was instituted in this court on August 18, 1970, and was one under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. 129 persons were shown as petitioners. The company and several of its directors entered contest and took the stand, inter ...
Ananda Chandra SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ508Ori
K.B. Panda, J.1. This writ petition raises the simple question whether Balimela Dam Project is an 'industry' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the following context.2. The petitioner was appointed as a machine tool operator, Grade II, on temporary basis and was posted under sub-division No. 15 on a monthly salary of Rs. 108 with usual dearness allowance. In January, 1964 his pay was refixed at Rs. 120 per month. In view of his good work he was upgraded to the post of Grade I Chargeman on a basic pay of Rs. 150 per month in December, 1964. While working so, he developed eye ailment because of working with surface grinding machine without adequate safety measures for which he had to undergo treatment. According to the petitioner, by the use of protective spectacles his eye sight was improving. During the period of treatment he was reverted to the post of machine tool operator, Grade II, on the ground that he was found not suitable ...
Collector of Cuttack Vs. Mayadhar Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori173
S.K. Ray, Ag. C.J. 1. By an order dated 26-6-72 of a Division Bench of which the then Chief Justice was a member, this appeal was directed to be heardby a larger Bench to examine the correctness of the decision in AIR 1956 Orissa 114. Accordingly this appeal has been heard by a Full Bench of three Judges. 2. This appeal is by the Collector of Cuttack from a decision dated 23-12-66 of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. The land, involved in this land acquisition proceeding is 0.02 decimals of Gharabari in plot No. 46, appertaining to Khata No. 102/11 of Mouza, Biribati. This land, along with other lands, was needed for improvement of Cuttack-Kuiang road and accordingly, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 19-4-63. Section 6 notification was also issued in dup course. Public notice under Section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18-5-63, and special notice under Secti...
Jagannath Mohanty and anr. Vs. Chanchala Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori160
Patra, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 8 and arises out of a suit for partition. In order to appreciate the controversy in the present case, it is necessary to set down the family pedigree which is shown below: BIDYADHAR MOHANTY | -------------------------------------------- | | | | Madhu Gopinath Gangadhar Ekadashi | | | | -------------------- --------------- Janaki -------------- | | | | | | | | Gopal Jayaram Nanda Ganeswar Rajkishore Abhiram Lambodar Sadhu | Dead (1930) | =Sati (D.5). | (D.7)Golak | Mohani (D.4). lehha (D.2) | (D.3). Brundaban | (D.6). --------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- | | Jagannath Krushna (Dead 1947) (D.1) =Chanchala (Plff.) =Swarnalata Adopted by (D.8). Lokanath Swain (D.W.1.)One Bidyadhar had four sons, namely, Madhu Gopinath. Gangadhar and Ekadasi. Madhu had three sons, namely, Gopal, Jayram and Nanda. Of them, Nanda died long ago and we are not concerned with that branch. Jayram died in the year 1930. Jagan...
The South India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Purna Chandra Misra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori166; 38(1972)CLT1196
B.K. Patra, J.1. A taxi bearing registration No. ORS 5336 belonging to one Golam Bari and being driven by the latter's driver met with an accident at about 4.15 a. m. on 16-3-1968 while it was proceeding from Jharsuguda to Sambalpur. At the time of the accident, there were two passengers in the car --one Kanakalata Misra a lady aged about 52 years and her son Puma Chandra Misra. As a result of the accident, both the passengers were injured the lady having sustained very severe injuries. They were admitted in the Burla Medical College Hospital where the lady died at about 12 noon. It was alleged that the driver was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it against an electric Post. Respondents 1' and 2 the legal heirs of the deceased. Kanakalata thereafter filed an application under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation of Rupees 42,200/- on account of the death of their mother Kankalata. Gulam Bari ...
Basudev Khadanga Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori136
R.N. Misra, J. 1. Jaganath Prasad is one of the 140 Constituencies of the Orissa Legislative Assembly. The petitioner a resident of a village in Buguda P. S. covered by the said constituency filed his nomination for election to the Orissa State Legislative Assembly in the mid-term poll held in 1971. His nomination paper was however, not accepted on the ground that it was a reserved Constituency for Scheduled Castes. The election was duly held end opposite party No. 7 was returned from the Constituency. By this application, the petitioner challenges the reservation of the constituency for Scheduled Castes and consequently impugns the election of opposite party No. 7.2. Of the several opposite parties, the Returning Officer -- opposite party No. 5, and the returned candidate --opposite party No. 7 -- have filed counter affidavit. The Union of India -- opposite party No. 1 -- has entered appearance through counsel and has advanced arguments against the contentions raised in the writ petit...
The Workmen Under the Director of Health Services Vs. the Director of ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1972
Reported in: 38(1972)CLT1146; (1973)ILLJ512Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the workmen working under the Director of Health Services, Orissa, asking for directions quashing the notification of the State Government dated 13-8-1969, and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to give effect to the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, dated 30th of June, 1969.2. On 1st of December, 1967, the State Government referred certain industrial dispute at the instance of the petitioners for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal of Orissa. After hearing parties, on 30th June, 1969, the Tribunal gave its award. On 8th of July, 1969, the Labour, Employment and Housing Department of the Government notified the award. The award was published in the State Gazette on 15-7-69. On 13th of August, 1969, in exercise of powers vested in them under Section 17A(I) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the State Governmen...
Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. Kishore Prasad Mohanty and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ561Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. The employer, Messrs. Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela has asked for a writ of certiorari to quash the award given by the Industrial Tribunal-opposite party No. 2 in favour of a workman, opposite party No, 1.2. The opposite party No. 1 was admittedly a workman in the employment of the company. He was recruited in May, 1960, and with effect from 1-11-1961, he was promoted as a converterman. The workman was on leave for the period between 16th of March, 1964 and 30th of March, 1964. The workman did not report to duty upon expiry of the leave. According to the employer, he also did not apply for extension of the leave and remained absent for more than a fortnight after the leave expired on 31 3-1964. Understanding Order 16 (x) of the certified standing orders of the employer, the workman lost lien on his appointment and was, therefore, presumed to have left the services of the company of his own accord without notice. His name was, therefore, struck off the rolls of the ...
Bipendra Pradhan Vs. Rabindra Narayan Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori98
S. Acharya, J.1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the con-firming decision of the District Judge, Cuttack, passed in Title Appeal No. 29 of 1960.2. This Court remanded Second Appeal No. 419 of 1963 to the lower appellate court to decide the matter afresh on giving findings on (1) the question of the plaintiff's right to claim subrogation and reimbursement and (2) whether such a right if available would be barred by limitation when the amendments made in pursuance of the directions of the High Court adding new relief would be deemed to relate back to the date of institution of the suit. The court below on fresh hearing finds that the right to claim subrogation and reimbursement is not available to the plaintiff, appellant herein. It has not decided the question of limitation on the ground that it does not arise for consideration in view the conclusion on the first above-mentioned question.3. The plaintiff's case in short is that Touzi No. 3695 belonged to Gokula-nanda. Ba...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »