Orissa Court November 1973 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.
Chandra Sekhar Pati and anr. Vs. Ahalya Devi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-29-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori199; 40(1974)CLT143
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Defendant No. 1 is the wife of the defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3 is the father of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 4 is the Marfatdar of the deity-landlord from whom defendants 1 and 2 claim to have obtained a lease. Deceased defendant No. 5 transferred the disputed land to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed Ext. 2 dated 5-7-1961 for Rs. 200/-. She died during the pendency of the suit without leaving any heirs and has not been substituted. Plaintiff's case is that the disputed property belonged to P. Somalingam, the husband of deceased defendant No. 5. He was unheard of and was presumed to be dead. Plaintiffs base their title on Ext. 2. The suit was filed in 1965. The suit is for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Defendant No. 1 claims title to the disputed property on the strength of a registered deed of lease Exhibit A dated 7-3-1944 from defendant No. 4. Defendants 1 and 2 also claim title by adverse possession....
Krushna Kishore Bal Vs. Sankarsan Samal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori89; 40(1974)CLT1
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. Plaintiffs and the defendant are adjacent neighbours. By two separate sale deeds, plaintiffs purchased 0.170 acre of land from one Sidheswar Sahu out of C.S. Plot No. 2283 in C.S. Khata No. 59 on 11-2-45. In the very year, plaintiffs constructed their residential houses on the land and continued to reside therein. Defendant purchased 0.170 acre of land from one Atul Ghose by a registered sale deed dated 12-4-45 from the very plot 2283. He, for the first time, started construction on his land in 1960. He did not leave a space of 15 feet as required under the Orissa Municipal Rules, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) towards the plaintiff's side; he made construction by leaving a space of 1 to 2 feet and by the date of the suit he was proceeding with the construction of his kitchen and latrine in close proximity to the plaintiff's houses. By the aforesaid illegal act, light and air to the houses of the plaintiffs were obstructed and their privacy was aff...
The Management of Gammon (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-26-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ34Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. The employer in an industrial dispute referred to by the State of Orissa for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal of Orissa has come before us challenging the finding of the Tribunal on a preliminary question of maintainability of the reference. Two references were made under Section 12(5) read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) of the following disputes:(1) Whether the workmen of Gammon (India) Ltd., Mundali, District Cuttack, engaged in construction of Mundali Weir are entitled to profit sharing bonus for the years beginning from 1960 to 1964? It so, what should be the quantum of the profit sharing bonus for each year ?(2) Whether the strike resorted to by the workers of Gammon (India) Ltd., Mundali, District Cuttack from 5-3-1965 is legal and justified and whether they are entitled to full wages for the periods ?These two questions were separately referred to by two independent orde...
Hirji Nagji and Co. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1973
Reported in: [1975]35STC461(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a firm registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act and has been assigned Registration No. B. P. C. 71. For the period from 1962-63 till 1967-68 it was assessed to Central sales tax. A part of its turnover was exigible to purchase tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. It made an application on 16th December, 1970, for refund of tax amounting to Rs. 27,971.59 relying upon the provisions of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, and that application came to be rejected on 25th February, 1971 (annexure 3), by the Sales Tax Officer. This writ application was filed on 29th March, 1971, to quash the said order of rejection and for a direction to the Sales Tax Officer to refund the amount. In the original application there was also a prayer for quashing the various assessments in regard to the years 1962-63 to 1967-68 (annexure 1 series). In the counter-affidavit it was contended that until the assessments were quashed no refund was admissible ...
Biswanath Ghosh Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward B and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-13-1973
Reported in: 39(1973)CLT1328; [1974]95ITR372(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J. 1. These are three connected applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. The first application is by a partner of the firm, M/s. Nilamani Ghosh & Partners. The second and third applications are by the firm itself. 2. There was delay in filing of returns of the income under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). So fax as the firm is concerned, the particulars are as hereunder :Assessment yearReturn dueReturn filedInterest levied under section 1391964-19651-10-196418-3-19692,0951965-661-10-19656-9-196916,1801966-671-10-196630-9-196916,8101967-681-10-196728-4-19702,660So far as the petitioner in O.J.C. No.92 is concerned, the material particulars are :Assessment yearReturn dueReturn filedInterest levied under section 1391968-691-10-196822-11-19703601969-701-10-196911-1-19714253. The petitioners challenge the levy of interest on the followinggrounds: (1) The assessee having not applied for extension of time as provided under Sub-section (1)...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›