Orissa Court April 1981 Judgments
State of Orissa and anr. Vs. Consolidated Construction Company (Engine ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ori166; 52(1981)CLT63
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act calls in question the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bhubaneswar by which he has made an award Rule of the Court under Section 17 of the Act. Respondent No. 1--a firm of contractors--undertook construction of the School of Mining Engineering at Keonjhar by entering into a contract in the standard F-2 Form on 22-8-1962. Work order had, however, been given on 30th ofJune, 1961, and the construction of the ground floor was over by 31-12-1961, and of the first floor by 30th of June. 1962. The claimant-contractor have notice under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator. The Additional Chief Engineer appointed respondent No. 2 as the arbitrator. When the contractor's application for revocation of the authority of the appointed arbitrator was rejected the contractor had moved this Court in Civil Revision No. 489 of 1978 and a learned single Judge by his Judgment on 15-5-1979 reporte...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Calcutta Company Limited
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ori206
K.N. Misra, C.J.1. Plaintiff, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with its registered office at Calcutta, entered into a contract with the State of Orissa through its officers for supply of materials meant for use in construction of projects and/or buildings of the State. Mutual rights and obligations were stipulated in the contract. When the security furnished by the plaintiff was forfeited and penalty was levied against it on the plea of breach, it filed a suit on 23-8-1965 for declaration that the order of forfeiture and the levy of penalty were liable to be set aside and for a direction that the amounts withheld be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that it was the obligation of the defendants to provide a motorable road to the siphon site where delivery and stacking of materials were to be made. The defendants were under obligation to provide the stacking site too. They having failed to perform their part of the contract, the plaintiff could not make th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Harihar Palo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ori141; 52(1981)CLT121
N.K. Das, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Jeypore refusing to set aside the award of the Arbitrator. The arbitration proceeding relates to the work 'Construction of H. L. Bridge over Chebali Nallah'. There was an agreement and in pursuance of that the disputes between the parties were referred to Shri B. Patnaik, Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle, Sambalpur by the Chief Engineer (Roads & Buildings), Orissa. The reference was for arbitration on the disputes over the claims of the claimant. The claimant had claimed Rs. 2,41,095, but the arbitrator has passed the award for Rs. 1,29,940. The award was objected to on the ground that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself as he failed to discuss and give his decision on each item of claim and counter-claim and has not given specific reasons for disallowing the claims of the present appellant. He hasalso misconducted himself in allowing additional claims. All these contentions of the de...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. R.C. Sahoo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ori140
N.K. Das, J.1. This appeal is directed against the' order of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar making the award of the Arbitrator a Rule of the Court after rejecting the objection raised by the present appellant. There was an agreement relating to 'Construction of road from Handidhua junction to Fertiliser project side including C. D. Works (Roads portion only)' in Dhenkanal. As disputes arose, reference was made to the Arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer, The respondent claimed Rs. 11 lakhs and odd but the Arbitrator has passed an award for payment of Rs. 90,159.00.2. The award is a non-speaking award, The Arbitrator has serialised the different items of contract and on each of theitems he has given his decision of the payments either rejecting the claim or allowing the same amount out of that The contractor claimed nearly about Rs. 11 lakhs and the Government referred a claim of about Rs. 1 lakh. The Arbitrator after considering the claim and the counter-claim has passed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkishore Senapati and ors. Vs. Utkal University and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ori188; 52(1981)CLT1
Misra, C.J. 1. Petitioner in each of these five writ applications appeared at the Annual B. A. Examination of the Utkal University of the year 1979 from the Nimapara College. The Utkal University has framed a set of hard case rules in terms of which if a candidate fails in any two subjects for a total of 15 marks or less in written papers, he could be made to pass in both the subjects in case the deficiency in each subject was five per cent or less. As indicated by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Gita Mishra v. Utkal University ILR (1971) Cut 242 : (AIR 1971 Orissa 276) these Rules have been in vogue for many years and have been treated to be valid. The five petitioners had failed in English and Modern Indian Language. During the year in question instead of the Board of Examiners scrutinizing the cases of such candidates as the petitioners, the Tabulators were authorised to give effect to the hard case rules. On the basis of the addition of marks given by the Tabulators each ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Gafoor
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1981
Reported in: [1981]131ITR577(Orissa)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the I,T. Act of 1961, for a direction to the Cuttack Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following two questions for the opinion of the court :' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the explanation of the assessee could constitute a reasonable cause for the delayed submission of return ?' 2. Assessee is an individual. The relevant assessment year is 1971-72. The return under Section 139 of the Act was due by 30th June, 1971, but was actually filed on December 7, 1975, notwithstanding the fact that a notice under Section 139(2) had been served on the assessee on December 7, 1971, Assessee had his personal income and share income from two firms. He took the plea that the share income of the firm had ...
Tag this Judgment!Parameswar Bagh and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ori154; 51(1981)CLT553
Misra, C.J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution is by the erstwhile members of the Board of Directors of Hindustan Aeronautics Employees' Co-operative Credit SocietyLimited at Sunabeda (hereafter referred to as the 'Society') challenging the supersession of the Board of Directors by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (opposite party No. 2) in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') and appointment of opposite party No. 3 as administrator of the Society. 2. The Society was registered under the Act in December, 1979. Opposite party No. 2 issued a notice on 9-6-1980 to the petitioners to show cause ap to why the Board may not be superseded. The Koraput Central Co-operative Bank Limited at Jeypore, happens to be the financing bank of the Society. Cause was shown as directed on 22-6-1980. In the notice (Annexure-1) opposite party No. 2 had fixed 24-6-1980 for personal hearing. Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Sajani Bewa and anr. Vs. Kartik Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ori157; 52(1981)CLT9
ORDERR.N. Misra, C.J. 1. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of refusal of amendment of the plaint and the preliminary decree. 2. Plaintiffs who are petitioners filed Title Suit No. 67 of 1955 for partition and obtained a preliminary decree on 29-4-1961 declaring their 1/8 shares in the property. In course of the final decree proceedings, after the Commissioner was appointed to work out the preliminary decree, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made whereby plaintiffs asked for insertion of a large extent of property in which they claimed their share to be different from l/8th. After hearing parties, the trial court has rejected the application and this revision impugns the rejection. 3. As would appear from the application for amendment, plaintiffs soughtfor deletion of certain properties from the hotchpot and wanted new properties to be added. The preliminary decree in a suit for partiti...
Tag this Judgment!Gadadhar Das Vs. Jatindranath Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ori142
ORDERR.N. Misra, C.J.1. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of defendant No. 1 challenging the order of the Munsif, Baripada, in a pending title suit rejecting an application for amendment made by the petitioner.2. Opposite party No. 1 has filed title Suit No. 6 of 1978 for declaration of his right, title and interest, recovery of possession of the disputed property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. I to remove the encroachment from plaintiff's land. The plaintiff as also the defendant No. 1 are purchasers of different portions of the disputed property from defendants 2 and 3. Defendant No. 1 entered appearance in the suit and filed his written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. He further pleaded that he had acquired title to the encroached portion by adverse possession. He applied to amend the written statement by insertion of a plea that the suit was grossly undervalued and the market value of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sahu and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, OrissA.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Ori)70; [1981]132ITR122(Orissa)
MISRA C.J. - Pursuant to a direction issued from this court under s. 236(2) of the I.T. Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the assessees applications, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, stated a case and referred the following question for the opinion of the court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 80,000 in the assessment year 1960-61 as income from other sources and in disallowing the claim of interest on the said amount claimed in the following assessment year, being 1961-62 ?'The assessee is a registered firm and the references relate to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, corresponding to the calendar years 1959 and 1960. The assessee filed returns of income for the assessment year 1961-62 and claimed deduction on account of payment of interest on loans. Subsequently, it filed a return for the assessment year 1960-61 on May 8, 1961, in response to a notice...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »