Orissa Court June 1976 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.
Sikhar Mallik and ors. Vs. Baidhar Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Ori230
R.N. Misra, J. 1. Owners of certain lands located within the Bhadrak Subdivision of the district of Balasore filed a suit on 12-10-1961 for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from continuing a land acquisition proceeding for the purpose of laying a road on the disputed property. They impleaded in the said suit the State of Orissa represented by the Collector of Balasore and the Land Acquisition Officer, Balasore, as defendants 1 and 2. They also impleaded as many as 12 other defendants under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Plaintiffs claimed that some of defendants trespassed over their lands on 2-5-1956 with a view to constructing a road and they dug up portions of the land. Thereupon plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 112 of 1956 and obtained a decree. Plaintiffs also claimed damages and obtained a separate decree. As those defendants did not remove the encroachment, plaintiffs levied execution. The defendants with a view to frust...
Subarna Barik Vs. the State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Ori236
R.N. Misra, J.1. On 21-3-1965, the Tahsildar of Cuttack (defendant No. 4) published a notice inviting intending bidders for allotting of the Sairat, namely the sole and exclusive right to hold a canteen, betel shop and cold drinks stall within the premises of the Cuttack Collectorate for the year 1965-66, i.e. 1st April, 1965 to 31st of March, 1966. The auction was held on 31-3-1965 and there were many bidders including the plaintiff. The bid given by the plaintiff at Rs. 16,200/- was the highest and was accepted. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 6,050/- out of the bid money and was put into possession of the canteen located within the Collectorate. Plaintiff found that in violation of the monopoly right conferred under the auction sale, several unauthorised vendors were permitted to open stalls within the premises of the Collectorate which very much adversely affected the plaintiff's business. Plaintiff represented to the public authorities and demanded that the monopoly conferred...
Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Sibananda Patnaik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Ori205
S. Acharya, J.1. The General Manager of the Orissa Road Transport Company Ltd., which owns the bus, ORG 2743, one of the vehicles involved in the accident in question, has preferred this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 23/69. The claim petition was filed by the father-in-law of the deceased (P. W. 10) on behalf of the widow and children of the deceased who are respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal. The accident in question took place on 18-10-1969 at about 11.00 a.m. near the Kuakhi bridge on the Cuttack-Bubaneswar road.The case put forward on behalf of the claimants is that on 18-10-1969 the deceased was returning in his car ORC 7733 from Berhampur to Cuttack. Near about the Kuakhai bridge the deceased's car was passing by the side of the bus ORG 2743 belonging to the appellant and after the car overtook the bus, the bus suddenly swerved to its right and dashed against the car. At th...
Petambar Pujari Vs. Bhikari Meher and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori16; 42(1976)CLT927
R.N. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiff sued for declaration of title for the disputed property and having lost in the original Court as also in the Court of appeal had carried Second Appeal No. 4 of 1972 to this Court. Our learned brother Acharya, J., also found against the plaintiff but having granted leave to appeal to a Division Bench, this appeal has been filed.2. The second defendant obtained a money decree against the plaintiff and levied execution of the decree in execution case No. 239 of 1957. The disputed property of the plaintiff was attached and ultimately sold by the Court on 15-4-1968. Defendant No. 1 purchased the same in Court auction and the sale in his favour was confirmed on 20th of June. 1968, there having been no objection raised to the sale. Admittedly the plaintiff is a member of the Scheduled Tribes while defendant No. 1 is not. Plaintiff filed the suit on the basis that the sale was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 22 (3) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act ...
Bhima Jally and ors. Vs. Nata Jally and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori59
R.N. Misra, J. 1. Defendants 2 to 4 in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession have appealed against the reversing judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Puri. 2. The disputed property is 62 decimals of Anabadi land in Plot No. 84 and constituted part of an estate which has long vested in the State of Orissa. Plaintiffs alleged that before plaintiff No. 1, his father had taken oral lease of the property from the ex-intermediary and in the year 1947, plaintiff No. 1 obtained written leases and planted trees on the disputed property and continued to be in possession. As the plaintiff No. 1 was a settled raiyat of the village, he acquired occupancy right in the disputed property. Subsequent to vesting of the estate, defendants 2 to 4 made an application to the Estate Abolition Collector against plaintiff No. 1 asserting communal rights of the villagers over the property and on the basis pf the said application of the defendants Miscellaneous Case No. 4...
Dhadi Sahu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-22-1976
Reported in: 42(1976)CLT838
R.N. Misra, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, pursuant to a direction from this court on 20th of August, 1975, made an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has stated these cases and referred the following common question for opinion of the court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the house in question belonged to the assessee ?'2. Assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment years are 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. In the course of assessment proceedings for the first of these three years, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had acquired a house for a consideration of Rs. 3,400 on 20th of November, 1957, in the name of his wife. The said house was reconstructed in the year 1962, and a portion thereof had been rented out to M/s, Ramdas Motor Transport Pvt. Ltd., the rent being Rs. 240 per month between...
State of Orissa Vs. Polytech International
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-22-1976
Reported in: 42(1976)CLT792; [1976]38STC125(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. At the instance of the State of Orissa, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, has stated this case and referred the following question for opinion of the court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, is justified in directing assessment of tax on the turnover of polythene goods at the rate of five per cent instead of seven per cent as per serial No. 7-C of the schedule of taxable goods ?2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and carries on business in polythene bags and other plastic goods. The assessee has calculated his tax liability at the rate of five per cent of the turnover. The Sales Tax Officer demanded tax at the rate of seven per cent.3. The assessee challenged the extra liability by preferring an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner on the footing that polythene bags were not covered by the notification for higher rate of tax and were liab...
Dhadi Sahu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, OrissA.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-22-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR337(Orissa)
R. N. MISRA J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttak Bench, pursuant to a direction from this court on 20th of August 1975, made an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has stated these cases and referred the following common question for opinion of the court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the house in question belonged to the assessee ?'Assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment year are 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. In the course of assessment proceedings for the first of these three years, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had acquired a house for a consideration of Rs. 3,400 on 20th of November, 1957, in the name of his wife. The said house was reconstructed in the year 1962, and a portion thereof had been rented out to M/s. Ramdas Motor Transport Pvt. Ltd., the rent being Rs. 240 per month between 1962...
Chakra Barik and ors. Vs. Mst. Jema Biswal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori63; 42(1976)CLT907
R.N. Misra, J.1. Defendants in a Title Suit challenge the order of the learned trial Judge permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.2. When the revision application was placed for hearing before one of us, the matter was referred to Division Bench. Two questions have been posed for consideration:--(i) Whether the order of the learned trial Judge in the facts of the case can be sustained and (ii) In view of the fact that long before the filing of the revision application a decree has been drawn up, does a revision lie in view of the language of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure We will deal with the second aspect first. The learned Munsif by his order dated14th of March, 1975, allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permissionto file a fresh suit on the same cause ofaction and even did not pass any orderfor costs. After this order was passed on14-3-1975, a decree was drawn up andnotified and on 22nd of ...
Executive Officer, N.A.C. Vs. Jagannath Mallik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1976
Reported in: 42(1976)CLT807; 1977CriLJ316
R.N. Misra, J.1. On 19-2-1973, the Executive Officer of the Notified Area Council, Hirakud, laid a complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 385-A of the Orissa Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the respondent on the ground that the latter had proceeded to construct a house without appropriate permission of the Notified Area Council. There was no dispute that requisite permission had not been taken but the accused in his defence pleaded that the construction had begun before the Notified Area Council itself was constituted and, therefore, no permission was necessary for the construction of the building in question. It was further pleaded that the prosecution was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 347 of the ActThe learned Magistrate found that the accused had been convicted on 17-9-1970 in Criminal Case No. III (A) C.C. 172 of 1970 for having commenced construction of the house without requisite permission. According to the tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »