Orissa Court July 1975 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.
Kanika Bewa Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-02-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ418
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 429. Indian Penal Code and Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 429, Indian Penal Code in default to undergo 10 days' S.I. No separate sentence has been imposed under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.2. Prosecution case Is that the petitioner gave a lathi blow to a calf of P.W. 1 on 21-10-1971. The calf had a fracture in the left hind leg and died on 27-10-1971 P.W. 1 lodged the FIR on the very day the calf was injured. Charge-sheet was submitted on 13-3-1972 and cognizance was taken on 18-4-1972. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as already stated on 30-4-1974 after the Cod of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the new Code) came into force on 1-4-1974. The defence was one of denial,3. Mr. Ray for the petitioner contended that the conviction is unsustainable as it is based on no eviden...
Natabar Hati Vs. Block Development Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-01-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ori68
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. Petitioner and Opposite Parties 2 to 5 filed their nomination to the office of the Sarpanch of Anantpur Grama Panchayat in the District of Cuttack on 17-3-1975 before the Block Development Officer (Opp. Party No. 1). The nomination papers were taken up for scrutiny. Petitioner raised an objection that Opp. Party No. 2 was an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master and was disqualified for standing as a candidate for Sarpanchship under Section 25 (1) (h) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'). Opposite Party No. 2 also took an objection that the petitioner was disqualified under Section 25 (1) (h) of the Act. Both the objections were overruled and they were allowed to contest. Opposite Party No. 2 secured the highest vote and petitioner came up next to him.2. Opposite Party No. 2 admits that he was an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. In (1971) 37 Cut LT 222 = (AIR 1972 Orissa 8). (Nabaghan v. Election Officer. Mukundapu...
Jayakrishna Mangaraj Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-01-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ori203
B.K. Ray, J.1. An area of 2.00acres in Sahid Nagar at Bhubaneswar belonging to the petitioner was acquired for development of the New Capital and possession of the land was taken by the opposite parties on 20-6-1963. The Collector under the award granted Rs. 18,400/-as compensation to the petitioner for the land acquired. At the instance of the petitioner who was not satisfied with the award on the ground that the compensation fixed by the Collector was too low a reference was made to the Court for determination of the real compensation.This reference was numbered as Misc. Case No. 10 of 1964 (C. A.) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar. The learned Subordinate Judge on 20-2-1965 under his judgment and decree fixed the compensation at Rs. 36,800/- and directed payment of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent on the compensation amount fixed in the aforesaid miscellaneous case. He, however, did not award statutory interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of...
K. Narayana Kumandan Sons and Co. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-01-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC374(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. The petitioner, a firm registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act as a dealer, carries on business at Rayagada within the district of Koraput including purchase and sale of oil-seeds. Oil-seeds are a declared commodity under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 (hereinafter referred as the 'Central Act') and, therefore, under the provisions of Section 15 of that Act, the transactions therein are subject to tax at one point only. Under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereafter referred as the 'State Act') oil-seeds are liable to tax at the purchase point. According to the petitioner, if purchase tax has been paid under the State Act and the said commodity becomes liable to tax under the Central Act, the purchase tax becomes refundable. Under Section 8(5) of the Central Act, the State Government issued the following notification :No. 43637 CTA-200/66-F.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act,...
Subudhi Krishna Murty and Sons Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-01-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC419(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business at Gunupur in the district of Koraput and is registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereafter referred as the 'Central Act') and has been assigned Registration Number K. O. C. II-18. Along with other commodities, it deals in oil-seeds. Assessments under the Central Act for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 were completed on 11th September, 1972, and 17th August, 1973, respectively. The assessing officer while completing these assessments had relied upon a notification issued by the State Government under Section 8(6) of the Central Act and had omitted to assess inter-State transactions in oil-seeds. After the decision of this court in the case of Orissa Hides Trading Co. v. Sales Tax Officer [1075] 36 S.T.C. 232, notices under Rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules have been issued for reopening the assessments. This writ application is directed against these notices and the petitioner claims for a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›