Orissa Court July 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.
State of Orissa Vs. B.P.R. Construction
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-08-1980
Reported in: 50(1980)CLT196; [1980]46STC422(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. The Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, stated these cases under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and referred the following two questions for the opinion of the court:(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the transaction between the assessee and the public works department is not a sale as denned under the Act and(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the contract entered in the F-2 standard form is a works contract and, therefore, sales tax was not payable?2. When the references came up for hearing before a Division Bench, the learned standing counsel heavily relied upon the Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Utkal Distributors Private Ltd. [1974] 34 S.T.C. 347 in support of his stand and the assessee's counsel while conceding that the ratio of the reported decision was against him, maintained that the same was not correct and required to be tested by a larger Bench. A...
Kamal Kumar Agarwal and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-08-1980
Reported in: 50(1980)CLT210; [1980]46STC384(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. In each of these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is a registered dealer both under the Orissa Sales Tax Act of 1947 as also the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956. The State Government in purported exercise of powers under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act made the following notification :Finance Department Notification No. 43637-CTA-200/66-F. dated the 8th December, 1966.In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956), the State Government having been satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest hereby direct that in respect of all declared goods sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, no tax under the said Act shall be payable by any dealer, having his place of business in the State in respect of the sale by him of such goods where tax has been levied and collected in respect of the sale or purchase of such declared goods under Sect...
E.i.D. Parry Limited Vs. Agro Sales and Service and ors., Etc.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori162; 50(1980)CLT419
R.N. Misra, J.1. These appeals under the Orissa High Court Order are directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in two miscellaneous appeals under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter called the Code) arising out of proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. When the appeals were placed before a Division Bench, it directed that both the matters be placed before a larger Bench.2. Money Suit No. 339 of 1970 was filed by the appellant in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Cuttack for recovery of Rs. 4,97,417.08 paise on the plea that appellant as principal had supplied goods to the defendants, a partnership firm and two of its partners, on credit and they had failed to pay the price of the goods. Defendants entered contest but ultimately suffered an ex parte decree. Two separate applications--one by defendants 1 and 3 and the other by the second defendant of the suit -- were filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code read with Section 1...
Gourahari Mahanta and ors. Vs. Tahsildar, Bonai and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori175; 50(1980)CLT267
R.N. Misra, J.1. Challenge in this application is to the order of the Revenue Officer (opposite party No. 1) determining the ceiling surplus lands in a suo motu proceeding under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. An appeal against the order was not entertained and the revisional authority also refused to interfere in the matter.2. One Gurucharan left behind three sons Malu, Laxmicharan and Shyamsundar. Malu is dead and Gourahari is his son, Gourahari, Laxmicharan and Shyamsundar are petitioners 1, 2 and 3 respectively. In the Settlement Record-of-Rights of 1940-41, Malu, Laxmicharan and Shyamsundar were recorded jointly and in the 1974 Settlement, their property was described to be 35.06 acres of land including the homestead. As early as 3-4-1945, there was an amicable partition by metes and bounds in the family and the property had been divided into three equal shares, each brother getting 10.50 acres. A memorandum of allotments was drawn up and the three branches began en...
State of Orissa Vs. S.L. Narayana and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori173; 50(1980)CLT240
S. Acharya, J.1. The Misc. Appeal No. 175/79 has been filed under Section 36(6) (39) (vi)) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the State of Orissa against the order of the court below overruling the objection of the appellant under Section 30 of the Act to the award dated 31-1-79 passed in favour of the respondent.2. The Civil Revision has been filed by the claimant as the court below while confirming the award by its order dated 13-7-79 has kept silent about granting interest under Section 29 of the Act on the principal amount payable to the claimant on the award.3. Both the Misc. Appeal and the Civil Revision arise out of a common order passed by the court below; they were taken up together for hearing and one set of arguments were advanced by the counsel appearing for both the parties. Hence both the Misc. Appeal and the Civil Revision are disposed of by this common judgment.Misc. Appeal No. 175/79.4. In view of the points required to be decided in this ...
Simakurty Satyanarayana and anr. Vs. G. Panalal Sahukar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori169; 50(1980)CLT168
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This appeal by defendant No. 2 in a suit for partition assails the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge at Jeypore granting the plaintiff a decree both for partition as also mesne profits.2. The disputed property is a rice mill which once belonged to the members of the family consisting of defendants 1 to 14. Defendant No. 15, a stranger happens to be the purchaser of 1/5th share from the disputed property and the plaintiff subsequently purchased the remaining 4/5th share therein in satisfaction of his decree put into execution. Upon the executing court refusing to put the plaintiff in possession on the ground that he was a part purchaser and his remedy lay in asking for partition, the plaintiff sued for partition of his 4/5th share and asked to be put in possession. He also laid claim for mesne profits from the date of his purchase on 28th of January, 1967.3. The second defendant alone entered contest and inter alia raised two pointed contentions namely,(i) a suit...
Banchhanidhi Das Vs. Kamala Devi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori171; 50(1980)CLT173
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This is a husband's appeal against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Puri rejecting his application for divorce on the plea that his wife (respondent No. 1) had been living in adultery with respondent No. 2.2. Plaintiff was resident of village Kurujang and after marriage with respondent No. 1 became a teacher in a basic school. He left behind his wife and children in the village home and used to come every week-end during holidays. Respondent No. 2 happens to be his paternal cousin brother, but younger in age to him. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff from the village, he picked up illicit relationship with the respondent No. 1 and started living in adultery with her. Plaintiff came to know of this fact and recovered five letters written by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1, wherein the fact of illicit relationship had been clearly indicated by the second respondent. When the plaintiff confronted his wife with these writings she ran away ...
Musa Jena and ors. Vs. Panu Charan Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori183; 50(1980)CLT178
S. Acharya, J.1. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the appellants in this appeal against the confirming decision of the court below.2. This second appeal was summarily dismissed on 23-8-77 in the admission stage by Hon'ble P. K. Mohanti, J. Thereafter a review petition was filed by the appellants which was registered as Civil Review No. 30/77. In this review matter it was contended by the appellants that subsequent to the dismissal of the second appeal they learnt that a notification under Section 3 (1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') had been published in the Orissa Gazette on 28-5-76 covering the area containing the suit property and so by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 (4) of the Act the plaintiffs' (respondents in this appeal) suit abated. On hearing both the parties Hon'ble P. K. Mohanti, J. allowed the review petition and recalled the order dated 23-8-77 and admitted the second appeal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›