Orissa Court October 1981 Judgments
Smt. Reena Padhi and Ors. Vs. Owners and parties, Interested, in the m ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ori57
B.N. Misra, J.1. This is the first suit filed in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. Reena Padhi, widow of the late Rabindranath Padhi, is plaintiff No. 1 Rinku plaintiff No. 2 and Rajat plaintiff No. 3 are respectively the minor daughter and son of plaintiff No. 1 and the late Rabindranath Padhi. Minor plaintiffs 2 and 3 are represented in the suit by their mother plaintiff No. 1 who has filed an affidavit that her interest is not adverse to that of her minor daughter and son. The owners and parties interested in the ship 'Jagdhir' are described as defendant No. 1 and Messrs Great Eastern Shipping Company, Limited having their registered office at Mercantile Bank Building, 60 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay are defendant No. 2. In the plaint both 'action in rem' and 'action in personam' are combined and pleaded against the defendants. However, Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted to the Court that for the present he was not pressing for an action in rem. The...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bhanuganga Tribhuban Deb Vs. Tahsildar-cum-revenue Officer, Sambal ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ori83; 53(1982)CLT1
R.N. Misra, C.J. 1. Challenge in this application is to the order of the Revenue Officer under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the further orders in appeal and revision passed under the Act. 2. The petitioner was the ex-Ruling Chief of the State of Bamra and held extensive properties. As the petitioner's claims for settlement of certain lands which had vested under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act were still to be disposed of under Chapter II of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, when the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1973 came into operation from 2-10-1973, he furnished a provisional return on 31-12-1973 under Section 40-A of the Act. Orissa Land Reforms Ceiling Case No. 30 of1974 was instituted on the basis of the return and a draft statement was published on 3-9-1975 under Section 43 (1) of the Act. The petitioner preferred objection to the draft statement and contended that Ac. 72.09 decimals of land were held by an i...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Antaryami Panigrahi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC98(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. The Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, has stated this case and referred the following two questions for opinion of the court under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal is justified in holding that there is practically no change when siali leaves are pinned together as siali khalli and there is no sub- stantial change in the identity to attract liability as a distinct separate goods at the point of sale under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal is justified to annul the tax levied in respect of siali khallis prepared out of siali leaves on which purchase tax has been paid ?2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Act and dealt inter alia in siali leaves during the period ending 1966-67. He purchased siali lea...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Babulal Ballabbhdas
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC200(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. The Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, has stated this case and referred the following question for our opinion:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was correct in law to have annulled the penalty levied under Rule 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957, for the quarter ending 31st March, 1967, in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act 103 of 1976 : [Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act] ?2. The brief facts are : The assessee is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act and omitted to make a return in respect of its turnover for the quarter ending 31st March, 1967. The assessing officer while completing the assessment imposed a penalty of Rs. 192 on a finding that there was a delay of 86 days in making the return. The assessee preferred an unsuccessful first appeal. In second appeal, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's submission by saying:In this second appeal, the onl...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Santosh Agency
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC393(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. The Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, has stated these cases and referred the following common question for opinion of the Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, sum paid by the dealer by way of octroi duty will form a part of the sale price under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 ?2. The self-same question had been referred to us by the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, in State of Orissa v. Pushraj Bijayakumar (S.J.C. No. 56 of 1975 reported in [1978] 41 STC 443). A Division Bench of this Court by its unreported decision dated 13th September, 1976, on an analysis of the provisions of the statute came to hold that 'octroi' would not be exempt from taxation under the Orissa Sales Tax Act merely because it has been separately charged at the point of sale by the dealer. Otherwise stated, it merges into sale price and while determining the amount of tax, octroi has to be taken into account. For the reasons indicated in the unreported de...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chandra Jatnia Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-20-1981
Reported in: 53(1982)CLT110; [1982]50STC372(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. The Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, has stated this case and referred the following three questions for opinion of the court under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'):(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inter- pretation of the seized documents from the premises of Balaram Das showing clandestine transactions with the assessee's business is justified ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing authorities are correct in law in enhancing the turnover beyond the amount actually found to be out of accounts while assessing under Section 12(2) ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, best judgment assessment is arbitrary and has no connection with the nexus found ?2. We are concerned with the assessment for 1973-74. The dealer has, as a fact, been assessed under Section 12(2) of the Act. From the facts stated in the statement of the...
Tag this Judgment!Sidha Dehury and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-19-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ500
B.K. Behera, J.1. In these five criminal appeals, arising out of the same judgment and order, to be governed by this common judgment, the order convicting each of the appellants Under Section 395 read with Section 397 of Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years is based on the solitary testimony of Shivlal Agrawala (PW 1), a resident of village Karadi in the district of Phulbani, in whose house the five appellants along with others, being armed with deadly weapons, such as, iron rods, lathis and gun, had, it was alleged committed dacoity at about midnight on the 13th day of June, 1977, in the course of which they removed ornaments, cash and other valuable properties causing injuries to Shivlal Agrawala (PW 1), his wife Karaini Agrawala (PW 2) and two neighbours, namely, Nilamani Behera (PW 3) and Parakhit Sahu (PW 4) besides others.2. On the basis of a telephonic message from Mr. Natabar Pradhan (PW 23), then a Minister of Cabine...
Tag this Judgment!Rasananda Patra Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: 54(1982)CLT171; 1982CriLJ272
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. Appellant has been convicted by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur Under Section 161, IPC and Under Sections 5(1)(a) and 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') and has been sentenced to R. I. for one year on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :- The accused-appellant being a public servant employed as Upper Division Clerk and posted as Bench Clerk to the Additional Tahsildar in Cuttack Sadar Tahasil obtained Rupees 100/- from Krushna alias Kusei Barik of Sankarpur (PW 11) on 26-6-1969 as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for showing favour to him by getting an order passed in his favour by the Tahsildar on his petition for review of the order passed in Misc. Case No. 6/66 in favour of Raghunath Rout in exercise of his official function and thereby committed an offence Under Section 161, IPC It was further alleged that during...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Samal Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1156
B.N. Mishra, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1978 has been filed by Harihar Samal who has been convicted Under Section 395. IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in Sessions Trial No. 37/40-D of 1976, The appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The State Government have filed Government Appeal No. 77 of 1978 against the acquittal of respondents Dusassan Samal, Ekadasi Samal and Narahari Samal in the same case. Since these two appeals arise out of the same judgment, they were heard analogously and this judgment' shall dispose of both the appeals.2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated. P.W. 2 is the wife and P.W. 3 is the mother of P.. W. 5. P.W. 1 is P.W. 2's brother. They belong to village Kolibania Kateni. On the night of 8-7-1974 P.W. 5 and the members of his family finished their meals at about 8. p. m. Thereafter they closed the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›