Orissa Court February 1979 Judgments
Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Khurda Vs. D.N. Se ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-23-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ori74; 47(1979)CLT472
S. Acharya, J.1. The appellant in this appeal filed a petition in the court below u/s 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award dated 10-8-1977 in its entirety on several grounds stated in that petition. That petition has been partly rejected by the court below. Hence this appeal.2. The award in question was given by the Superintending Engineer, Balimela Dam Circle, Chitrakonda, Koraput. Respondent No. 1 made an application before the court below under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act to pass a judgment and decree in accordance with the said award. At that stage the appellant filed the petition u/s 30 of the Arbitration Act. In that petition the appellant objected to the assessment made in respect of item No. 1 of the claim (item No. 1 of the award) on the ground that the assessment in respect of that item of claim had not been made in accordance with Clause (3) of the agreement between the parties, The agreement does not form a part of the award. Clause (3) of the agreement, o...
Tag this Judgment!L. Sanyasi and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-15-1979
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Ori)313; [1979]118ITR459(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari by a petitioner who is an assessee under the I.T. Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, opposite party No. 1, dismissing the petition under Section 273A(4) of the Act has been asked to be quashed.2. Assessee is a registered firm and in respect of the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, as against tax demands of Rs. 2,231 and Rs. 1,696, respectively, demand of penalty and interest under different provisions of the Act of Rs. 10,300 and Rs. 3,745, respectively, was raised against it. Assessee applied to the Commissioner under Section 273A(4) of the Act asking for waiving the demand of penalties and interest. It claimed that the firm and its partners were not in a position to meet the demands and, in the circumstances, the same may be waived. The Assessing Officer recommended the claim of the assessee for reduction in demand. After hearing assessee's counsel and...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhamani Dei Vs. Sadananda Mohanty and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Ori130; 47(1979)CLT513
ORDERR.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application by the widow of one of the judgment-debtors whose objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') to the execution of the decree has been rejected. She has claimed that the property in her hands was not liable for execution and, therefore, should be exempted.2. Opposite party No. 1 obtained a decree in Money Suit No. 4 of 1967 on 23-12-1968, against one Narayan Mohanty and his son Chandrakanta. The decree was put into execution in Execution Case No. 43 of 1975. In view of the death of Narayan his widow and daughter were brought on the record as legal representatives. An objection was filed in the executing court by the widow and her daughter contending that they were not liable for the decretal dues and as such should be expunged from the execution case. The executing court rejected the objection. The widow has carried this revision challenging the order of rejection of her objection. So far ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyabadi Pradhan Vs. Tahasildar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Ori150; 48(1979)CLT261
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks to quash the order under Annexure 6 passed by opposite party No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Berhampur in O.E.A. No. 1 of 1976 and the consequential notice under Annexure 7 issued by opposite party No. 1, the Tahasildar-cum-O.E.A. Collector, Digapahandi in C. P. No. 1281 of 1966. Petitioner further prays for issue of a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate order prohibiting and/or restraining the opposite parties either from taking any action or in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the disputed property by virtue of the aforesaid order.2. The case of the petitioner is that his ancestors purchased certain lands locally known as Gangasagar bila along with the disputed land measuring about A 4.77 decimals in Khasra No. 13 and Khewat No. 22 of mouza Gada Chaitanpur from one Bhagirathi Pattanaik and others by a registered sale deed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›