Orissa Court January 1980 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.
Niranjan SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori142; 49(1980)CLT319
ORDERN.K. Das, J.1. The petitioner, an 'A' class contractor had undertaken construction of Distribution System of a canal in the district of Phulbani. For the said work, he entered into an agreement under the F2 contract. As disputes arose between the petitioner and the opposite parties, the petitioner requested the Department to settle the disputes and as the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner, the peitioner communicated with the Chief Engineer to appoint an arbitrator for settlement of the disputes, as provided in the agreement. The Chief Engineer was duly served with a registered notice on 23-1-1979 who received the same on 24-1-1979. Notice was also served on the concerned Executive Engineer, As no arbitrator was appointed within, the prescribed period of fifteen days, the petitioner filed the case in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar for appointment of an arbitrator after expiry of the statutory period.A counter was filed by opposi...
Kalandi SwaIn and ors. Vs. Braja Kishore Dass and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori98
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. The defendants in the suit are the petitioners in this Civil Revision.2. The defendants filed a petition on 20-11-79 asking the court below to at first hear the parties regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of the pleader-commissioner's report submitted in this case before proceeding to hear the suit on merits. The court below has rejected the said petition stating that the said petition was filed at a late stage; the pleader-commissioner's report can be treated as a piece of evidence at the hearing of the case; and it is not necessary to at first hear the parties on the question of acceptance of the pleader-commissioner's report and decide that question before proceeding to hear the suit on merits. Hence this Civil Revision.3. Mr. Dey, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the court was not justified to hear the suit on merits without at first recording an order either accepting or refusing to accept the pleader-commissioner's report.Admitted...
G.V. Rama Murty Patnaik Vs. Minaketan Senapati and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori101; 49(1980)CLT350
S. Acharya, J.1. The plaintiff, being unsuccessful in both the courts below, has preferred this second appeal.2. The plaintiff's case in short is that he has acquired easementary right by prescription by enjoying for more than 20 years the free flow of air and light to a room in the first floor of his house described in the plaint, and that the defendants by constructing a house close to his said house have obstructed the free flow of air and light to the plaintiffs said room thereby causing material injury to the comfortable use of the said house by the plaintiff. On that allegation the plaintiff has prayed for mandatory injunction against the defendants directing them to demolish their said building in the vicinity to the extent of 10 cubits in height.3. The defendants contest the suit by stating that the plaintiff has not acquired the easementary right claimed by him; there is no obstruction to free flow of air and light to the plaintiff's building due to the , construction of the d...
State of Orissa Vs. P. Sreerangam and Sons
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC432(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act made by the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal of Orissa, at the instance of the State referring the following question for opinion of the court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, is justified in directing levy of tax on the turnover of silver ornaments at the rate of 5 per cent as per the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act instead of 7 per cent as per the provisions of entry in serial No. 27 of the Schedule of taxable goods ?2. The assessment is for the year 1971-72. The assessee deals in stainless steel silver ornaments, stone-studded ornaments, etc. The assessing officer rejected the assessee's contention that silver ornaments were unclassified goods and, therefore, liable to be taxed at the rate of five per cent and took the view that silver ornaments came within the purview of entry in serial No. 27 of the rate schedule and,...
State of Orissa Vs. Udayanath Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1980
Reported in: [1982]50STC178(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. The Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, has stated these cases under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, at the instance of the revenue for opinion of the court on the following two questions :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's liability determined under Section 4(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act prior to its amendment with effect from 1st July, 1969, by amending Act 15 of 1968 will not continue for a period of three consecutive years ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to hold that the assessee whose liability to pay tax had accrued with effect from 1st March, 1969, and who ultimately got himself registered under Section 9 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for the period 31st March, 1970, could also be held not liable to pay tax for the quarters ending 30th September, 1969, and 31st December, 1969 ?2. The assessee deals in grocery and stationery articles and was an unre...
Manoharlal Arora and ors. Vs. Atma Prakash Arora and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori57; 49(1980)CLT233
ORDERS.K. Ray, C.J. 1. These four revisions have been heard together as they all arise out of different orders passed in the same suit and as they relate to the same topic, namely, examination of witnesses on commission and payment of expenses of the Advocate for the plaintiff as 'expenses of commission and will be governed by this common order. The interconnection will be apparent from the enumeration of facts hereinbelow.2. In Civil Revision No. 30 of 1979, the defendant No. 1 is the petitioner and this Revision is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 8-1-1979 wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay the costs of the plaintiff as 'expenses of commission.In Civil Revision No. 64 of 1979 the plaintiff is the petitioner and this Revision is directed against the self-same order dated 8-1-1979 allowing the application of defendant No. 1 to examine 13 witnesses out of 14 witnesses named therein on commission. This Revision is connected with Civil Revision No. 30...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›