Orissa Court September 1981 Judgments
Bizi Industries Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: 52(1981)CLT552; 1986(8)ECC22; 1983LC135D(Orissa); 1982(10)ELT109(Ori)
N.K. Das, J.1. Petitioner runs a small scale Industry under the name and style of 'M/s Bizi Industries'. Besides taking Job orders of fabrication, petitioner is engaged in manufacture of steel furniture at Cuttack. The steel furniture are subject to levy of Central Excise Duty as per entry 40 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act. This entry provides for duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem. By two notifications dated 1-4-1971 and 17-3-1972 issued under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, it was provided : (1) Nil rates applicable only to the first clearances up to a value not exceeding rupees one lakh in a financial year, and (2) Nil rates applicable only in case of a manufacturer whose value of steel furniture cleared in the preceding financial year had not exceeded rupees two lakhs. In case of a manufacturer who had no clearance in the preceding financial year 'nil' rates should be applicable only in case where the value of steel furniture during the fin...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. Associated Mar ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ori1; 53(1982)CLT150
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. This appeal under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bhubaneswar directing the filing of the arbitration agreement.2. The Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, appellant herein (hereafter referred to as the 'Federation'), is the manufacturer of the granulated mixed fertiliser by the trade name 'Shyamala'. The Federation entered into an agreement with the respondent as per Annexure 1 relating to the marketing of Shyamala. The terms regulating the relationship between the parties are contained in the agreement. The Federation annulled the agreement with effect from 3rd of March, 1980. On 7th April, 1980, the respondent made an application purporting to be under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act before the learned subordinate Judge of Bhubaneswar and stated therein that the cause of action arose upon cancellation of the contract and subsequent service of notice demanding appointment ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Jagannath Ram and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1981
Reported in: 52(1981)CLT529; 1982CriLJ118
B.N. Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the -judgment dated 28-2-78 passed by Smt. B. Devi, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar. in 2 (c) C. C No. 472 of 1976.2. State (Central Government) is the appellant. Respondent No. 3 is the hotel of which respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the partners. The hotel is situated at Bhubaneswar. The case of the prosect-tion is that respondents 1 and 2 failed to submit the statutory returns under paragraphs 36 (2) (a), 36 (2) (b) and 38 (2) of the Employees' provident Funds Scheme, 1952 within the prescribed time limits. P.W. 1 who claims to be the senior provident Funds Inspector submitted report against the respondents to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the latter sanctioned prosecution of the respondents. Accordinqjy, prosecution report Ext. 2 was submitted to the court on 9-11-76 along with Ext. 1, the sanction order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The respondents were summoned and put on trial. Two witnesses...
Tag this Judgment!Kartika Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: 52(1981)CLT543; 1981CriLJ1762
ORDERR.N. Misra, C.J1. The petitioners challenge the direction of the learned Executive Magistrate, Patnagarh, on conclusion of a proceeding under Section 107, Cr.P.C. requiring them to furnish interim bonds as provided under the Code to the tune of Rs. 500/- each to keep the peace in the locality for six months. The order of the learned Magistrate was passed on 14 th Feb., 1977. An appeal was carried to the Sessions Judge of Bolangir which was ultimately dismissed on 16th July, 1979. The order of the learned Magistrate as upheld in appeal is assailed in this revision application.2. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that more than 4| years have passed since the order of the learned Magistrate was made and within this time there has been no further overt act from the side of the petitioners which would endanger the peace in the locality and, therefore, reliance has been placed on the observations of this Court in the case of Tabarak Ali Khan v. State. (1972) 2 Cu...
Tag this Judgment!Narasingh Bariha Vs. Abhimanyu Behera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ori17
ORDERR.N. Misra, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Sahu for the petitioner and Mr. Mohapatra for the O. P. on the question of condonation of delay. There is a total delay of 295 days in the presentation of this revision application on behalf of the defendant challenging the finding rendered on 22-11-1979 by the learned subordinate Judge that the suit is maintainable. Ordinarily I would have refused to entertain the application for condonation of the long delay, but for these special circumstance. The suit in which the impugned order was passed was dismissed for the opposite party's default on 10-1-1980. An application for restoration of the suit was allowed on 12-12-1980. On 14-1-1981 this revision application challenging the order dated 22-11-1979 has been filed. Petitioner's stand is that the rait having been dismissed on 10-1-1980 and- the dismissal having remained effective till 12-12-1980, petitioner had no scope to challenge the impugned order during the period the suit stood dismissed. The whole...
Tag this Judgment!Tima Mali and ors. Vs. Kartika Meher and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ori216; 52(1981)CLT431
ORDERN.K. Das, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners against a judgment of reversal in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The appellate Court has remanded the suit to the trial Court and, as such, this revision arises. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit lands belonged originally to one Ratnakar Panda. He surrendered, these lands to the Mafidar of Jharsuguda late Lal Haribansha Singh Deo by a surrender deed dated 21-2-1942, The Mafuidar settled these lands in favour of the plaintiffs by executing three documents of lease on 7-3-1942 and since then the plaintiffs have beea in possession of these lands. Thereafter the plaintiffs got these properties partitioned and they have perfected their title on the same. The defendant forcibly possessed these lands and amalgamated these lands with his own land and a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was started which ended in favour of the defendants. The defendant in his written statement ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›