Orissa Court September 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.
Radhika Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1976
Reported in: 42(1976)CLT1273; [1977]39STC93(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, two questions have been referred under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for opinion of the court:(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, bed sheets, napkins and towels, after being manufactured in the mill when cut into sizes and stitched at both ends and pillow covers manufactured by stitching three ends of mill-made cloth after being cut into particular sizes are cloths or clothes ?(2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner's dealing in pillow covers and napkins are covered under entry No. 33 of the Schedule of exempted goods under the Orissa Sales Tax Act ?2. The petitioner carries on business in the name and style of 'M/s. Radhika' at Cuttack and deals in mill-made cloth. Some of the items sold by the dealer are pillow covers which are stitched on three sides, bed sheets stitched at the two ends, towels cut into pieces and napkins stitched...
Kashinath Sahoo Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ457Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. Petitioner is an employee of the Orissa State Electricity Board now working under the City Distribution Division, Cuttack. The Executive Engineer of the said City Distribution Division has required the petitioner to reure from service after one month, of the date of receipt of the notice dated 19-8-1976 (Annexure 5) on the ground that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation as provided in Sub-clauses (ii) of Clause 2) of Section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Gratuity Act') Petitioner challenges his superannuation in this writ application.2. According to the petitioner, he was employed under the Cuttack Electric Supply Company Limited as a workman and was entitled to continue in service as long as he was medially fit The State of Orissa revoked the licence of the Cuttack Electric Supply Company Limited with effect from 1-2-1962 in exercise of powers vested under S 5 of the Electricity (Supply Act of 1948 an...
Sitaram Beura Vs. Birakishore Beura and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori65
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. Both the Civil Revisions will be disposed of by this common judgment.2. In order to appreciate the facts, it is necessary to refer to the following genealogical table as given in the plaint: UDAYNATH (Died in 1945) | ____________________|____________________________________ | | | | Kanhu Paramananda Brahmananda Valamukunda =Padmabati (D.5) (died in 1954) (D.8) (D.4) ____________|__________ | | | | Jalati | Brajakishore Sitaram (D.9) | (D.6) (D.7) _____|__________________________________________________ | | | | Brajkishore Pranakrushna Nirmani Sunamoni (D.1) (D.2) (D.3) 3. Gurubari, the widow of Brahmananda filed Title Suit no. 39 of 1961 for partition of her share in the undivided joint family properties. Defendant No. 2 filed written statement claiming himself to be the adopted son of late Brahmananda. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 supported the claim of defendant No. 2. All these defendants pleaded pre-partition. On 5-12-1963 a preliminary decree for partition was pas...
Chandrasekhar Patel Vs. Ukiabati Patel and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori82; 42(1976)CLT1277
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J. 1. This Civil Revision arises in the following circumstances:2. Opposite party No. 1 is the first wife and opposite parties 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of the petitioner. The opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 64 of 1969 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur claiming future and past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 160/-per month (Rs. 100/- for opposite party No. 1 and Rs. 60/- for opposite parties 2 and 3). They also claimed that the immovable properties described in Schedule A of the plaint should foe charged forrealisation of the decretal dues. The suit was compromised on the terms that all the movable and immovable properties of the defendant-petitioner should be divided into four equal shares. The defendant and his mother together would take one share, his second wife Padmavati one share, his son Radheshyam Patel one share and the plaintiff No. 1 the remaining share to which she would have full title in lieu of her claim for future maintenance...
Shyamsundar Sahu and Co. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ363Ori
S. Acharya, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Labour Court, dated 31-3-75, passed on an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' filed by Sridhar Sahu, opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as O.P. No. 2) in that Court. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The O.P. No. I was appointed in the petitioner's firm as a salesman since the year 1956.2. According to the petitioner, O.P. No. 2 was in the habit of remaining absent unauthorisedly. In the years 1972 and 1973 the O.P. No. 2 remained absent respectively for 15 2 and 141 working days. All warnings and requests to O P. No 2 for rectifying himself in that direction proved futile. O.P. No. 2 unauthorisedly remained absent for most pans of the months of October and November, and for whole of December, 1973. In January, 1974 he came to the petitioner's establishment and expressed his desire not to c...
Bhuyan Abdul Mahatab Khan Vs. Bhuyan Abdul Seheed Khan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori84; 42(1976)CLT1238
ORDERN.K. Das, J. 1. The petitioner in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act filed a petition under Sections 18 and 30 of the said Act claiming share in the compensation. This petition was rejected;by the Land Acquisition Officer as the award has not been passed in favour of the petitioner and there cannot be any reference to the civil court. This order is not sustainable.2. If there is a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector under the Act is bound to send the reference to civil court under Section 19 of the Act. He has no jurisdiction to refuse to refer, in Chintada Kasiviswanadham v Sub-Collector, Berhampur, (1960) 26 Cut LT 552 = (AIR 1961 Orissa 39), a Division Bench of this Court has held that if conditions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act are fulfilled, then the Collector is bound to make a reference to the District Judge. The appropriate court at that time was that of the District Judge and, as such, this Court held that reference...
Smt. Sorojini Rath Vs. Bhaskar Rath
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori42; 43(1977)CLT117
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Parlakhe-mundi rejecting the defendant's prayer for hearing of the issue relating to res judicata as a preliminary issue.2. It is urged on behalf of the defendant-petitioner that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is not in accordance with the provisions of Order 14, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code which authorises the court to take up a question of law for preliminary decision if it is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only.3. The trial of a case piecemeal is a serious evil to the parties. It leads to protracted litigation and repeated appeals. It is now well settled notwithstanding the provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 that in appealable cases the trial court should hear all the issues together So as to avoid a remand where the appellate court differs from the trial court on the preliminary issue. But when issues of ...
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (Koraput Division) Vs. State of Orissa a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC538(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. These are eleven applications by M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (Koraput Division) -- a Government of India undertaking under the Ministry of Defence -- asking for writs of certiorari to quash a common order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal of Orissa in the matter of condonation of delay in preferring eleven second appeals under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ganjam Range at Berhampur, setting aside assessments made by the Sales Tax Officer of Koraput I Circle at Jeypore.2. When the Sales Tax Officer initiated assessment proceedings under the Act, the petitioner-company took the stand that it was engaged in the manufacture of aero engines for the MIG fighter planes for the Union Government and delivery of the aero engines to the Government of India did not constitute 'sale'. Therefore, the petitioner was not a dealer and the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make ...
Dr. Harish Chandra Ray Vs. K.C. Singh
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori76
N.K. Das, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the decision dismissing his suit for realisation of arrears of house rent from the defendant in respect of the house situated in Cuttack town bearing holding No. 431 in ward No. 15 of Cuttack Municipality. The house is situated at Badhei Sahi, Buxi Bazar.2. Plaintiff's case is that the is the owner of the house and defendant is a monthly tenant under him in respect of the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. The defendant defaulted payment of the house rent from May, 1973 and hence he filed the suit for recovery of arrears of house rent together with costs and interest on the same.The case of the defendant is that on 30-11-1960 he was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit house under the plaintiff for one year on annual rental of Rs. 2,400/-. He was paying rent regularly till 1-3-1966. He was never a monthly tenant under the plaintiff. On 1-3-1966 the plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the def...
Basudev Sahu Vs. Krushna Chandra Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-13-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori43; 42(1976)CLT1269
ORDERN.K. Das, J.1. This revision is directed against a confirming decision decreeing plaintiff's suit for recovery of loan advanced by him together with interest on a promissory note. The defendants in the written statement took several pleas and both the courts below have given findings on different points which do not arise for consideration in view of the legal position as contended by Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and, as such, I am not going into details as those are unnecessary.2. It is contended by the petitioner that by virtue of the Orissa Money-Lenders (Amendment) Act of 1975 (Orissa Act 54 of 1975) the claim of the' opposite parties shall stand abated by virtue of Section 18-B (8). Section 18-B (1) provides that the State Government may, from time to time, by notifications, require the money-lenders or money-lenders belonging to any class or carrying on business in any local area, to produce before such authority and by such date as may be specified in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »