Orissa Court November 1979 Judgments
Damji Jairam Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-30-1979
Reported in: [1980]126ITR245(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J. 1. The Cuttack Bench of the Wealth-tax Tribunal has stated a case under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ', referred the following question for the opinion of the court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the meaning of the phrase held by him appearing in Section 5(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, did not extend to assets held by the wife of the assessee and included in the total wealth of the assessee by virtue of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act '2. Assessee is an individual. The relevant assessment year is 1974-75, the relevant valuation date being March 31, 1974. Assessee had made a gift of Rs. 20,000 in cash to his wife in an earlier year and the donee had invested the same amount in a fixed deposit with a bank. The WTO treated this amount as includible in the assessee's assets under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and finding that the asset was not held b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Panda and Co.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-21-1979
Reported in: 49(1980)CLT74; (1980)15CTR(Ori)152; [1980]121ITR342(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. At the instance of the revenue on an application made under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ' the Act'), this court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, to state a case and refer the following question for the opinion of the court :'Whether, in tKe facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that opportunity has to be provided for removal of defects in application for registration as contemplated in Sub-section (2) of Section 185 of the Act where the application itself was not filed in time and the assessee did not make any request for condonation of delay in filing the application under the proviso to Section 184(4) '2. It may be pointed out that the Tribunal at the instance of the revenue on an application under Section 256(1) of the Act had referred a question also to this court for opinion, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Off...
Tag this Judgment!Doki Adinarayana Subudhi and Brothers Vs. Doki Surya Prakash Rao
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ori110; 48(1979)CLT609
P.K. Mohanti, J. 1. The appellant as plaintiff brought Original Suit No. 2 of 1978 for a declaration that the defendant-respondent has no right to use the plaintiffs trade mark in respect of the Masala (chewing tobacco) branded as 'Bharat Vikhyat Khetaki Khara Masala No. 666'of which the plaintiff claimed to be the registered owner under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and the Copyright Act. The plaintiff also filed an application for issue of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from infringing his right to the trade mark. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge rejected the prayer for temporary injunction by order dated 4-10-78 on the finding that even though the plaintiff had prima facie title and exclusive right to the use of the trade mark, he having suppressed the material fact of a settlement deed dated 12-11-63 and the fact of association of the defendant in the business was not entitled to the grant of a temporary injunction. 2. Aggrieved by the o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.C. Budharaja and Company
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-13-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR212(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, has stated these cases as directed by this court on the applications of the revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') and has referred the following common question for opinion of the court:'Whether, on the facts found by the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee is entitled to the benefit provided under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The relevant assessment years are 1974-75 and 1975-76. S.J.C. Nos. 97 and 98 of 1975 relate to one registered firm which had undertaken construction of a minor irrigation project in the district of Dhankanal. The first reference is with respect to the assessment year 1974-75 and the other for the subsequent assessment year. S.J.C. No, 99 of 1978 relates to assessment year 1975-76 and the assessee therein, another registered firm, undertook erection of the Sundar Irrigation Project. According to the assertion of the revenue, the f...
Tag this Judgment!Malli Bewa Vs. Natabar Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-08-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ori34; 49(1980)CLT358
R.N. Misra, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 2 have challenged the decision of the learned District Judge of Cuttack granting Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed in favour of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal, defendant No. 1 appellant died and her name has been deleted without any substitution by order No. 14 dated 28-11-1974. The sole plaintiff-respondent having died, his legal representatives have been brought on record as respondents.2. One Panu Khuntia had two sons Damei and Nidhi. Damei's grandson is Madhusudan (defendant No. 2). Nidhi had a daughter Malli (defendant No. 1) and two sons Radhashyam and Balakrishna. Radhashyam's widow Kamala was the testatrix. Balakrishna pre-deceased Radhashyam leaving behind a daughter Shakuntala. Radhashyam died in 1964 while living separate from his brother. Malli had married away. Kamala wasin her late thirties when she became a widow. Birakishore (P. W. 1) and Natabar (plaintiff) are first cousins. The testatrix got...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Jajodia Overseas ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-07-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ori66
S. Acharya, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act') against the order dated 9-3-79 of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No. 250 of 1975.2. The facts, in brief, are that Jajodia Overseas Private Limited, the plaintiff-respondent in this appeal (hereinafter called the 'claimant'), and the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Limited, the defendant-appellant in this appeal (hereinafter called the 'I. D. C.') entered into an agreement in the year 1969 by which the I. D. C. agreed to supply certain articles as specified therein to the claimant for export on terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. The articles, which the I. D. C. was to deliver to the claimant, were not supplied to the latter, and by letter dated 12-9-69 the I. D. C. cancelled the agreement and intimated the claimant that the offer of the I. D. C. which culminated in the agreement, be treated as withdrawn. After this letter ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Chandra Vs. Gadadhar Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ori54; 49(1980)CLT215
P.K. Mohanti, J. 1. The second Appeal is by the plaintiff against a reversing decree.2. The suit was for a declaration of title to and confirmation of possession over the land in dispute measuring 48 decimals which stand recorded in the names of Arta Sethi and Dama Seth as Desa Heta Dhoba Jagir in the C. S. record of rights finally published in the year 1928--vide Ext. 3. Arta died issueless leaving behind him his widow Fakiri Bewa. Dama died leaving behind him his son Saratha. The plaintiff claiming himself to be the son of Saratha came to court with the allegation that he had inherited the half-share of Saratha and had purchased the remaining half-share from Fakiri Bewa by a registered sale deed. Thus, he claimed to be the full owner of the entire 48 decimals of land. After abolition of the intermediary interest, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 8(3) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act for settlement of the land in his favour. The application was contested by the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Sukadeolal Banka and anr. Vs. Jogeswar Prasad Sharma and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ori144; 49(1980)CLT39
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against an order refusing leave to sue as an indigent person. Opp. Party No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rupees 11,200/-, as the price of gold ornaments said to have been pledged with the petitioner No. 1 and applied for leave to sue as an indigent person. The opposite parties filed counter contending, inter alia, that the petitioner No. 1 is not an indigent person and that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the findings that the petitioner was not possessed of sufficient means so as to pay the required court-fee. Relying on a decision reported in (1968) 34 Cut LT 1321 : (AIR 1968 Orissa 213), (Gobardhan Das v. Raghunandan Das) he held that it would be appropriate to consider the question of limitation during the trial of the suit and not at the stage of enquiry into the application under Order 33, Rule 1, C. P. C.2. Order 33, Rule 5, C. P. C. enumerates the events in which an application fo...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmani Srimali Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1979
Reported in: 48(1979)CLT625; 1980CriLJ363
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against an order dated 10-7-79 passed by the Judicial Magistrate second class, Panposh refusing to drop the proceedings and discharge the accused in G. R. Case No. 710 of 1976.2. On 5-6-76, one Nityananda Mohapatra, who is a P. W. D. contractor, lodged a first information report before the Inspector of Police, Rourkela Section (Sector)- 10 Police Station, alleging that in the year 1973 he had incurred some loans from the accused (Petitioner here) on pledge of an Ambassador car, a Kirloskar 5 H. P. Pump-set and some gold ornaments weighing about 2 1/2 tolas and that although he had repaid the entire loan with interest by May, 1975 the pledged articles were not returned to him and the accused was attempting to convert the same to his own use. The F, I. R. was endorsed by the Inspector of Police to Shri R. K. Mohapatra, Sub-Inspector of Police, who registred a case under Section 406, I. P. C. against the accused and took up invest...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›