Orissa Court November 1982 Judgments
Dipak Kumar Parija Vs. Chancellor, Utkal University and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori101
Misra, J.1. Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 21-6-1982 (Annexure 2) passed by the Chancellor of Utkal University cancelling the election of the petitioner to the Syndicate and directing fresh election under Section 10(1) (g) of the Utkal University Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner works as a Laboratory Assistant in the Department of Psychology in Buxi Jagabandhu College, Bhubaneswar. He is a member of the Senate of Utkal University having been elected from the Registered Graduates' Constituency under Section 9 (1) (p) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the Registrar of Utkal University, opposite party No. 2, invited nominations for election to the Syndicate under Section 10 (1) (g) of the Act from amongst the members of the Senate and accordingly he filed his nomination along with other candidates. On 27-2-1982 opposite party No. 2 scrutinised the nominations and declared, the nominations of the petitioners and one Arun Patnaik as...
Tag this Judgment!ichhabati Mohanty and anr. Vs. Bishnu Charan Paital and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori59
ORDERR.N. Misra, C.J.1. From one Rajalaxmi, the admitted owner, the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 and the defendants 1 and 2 purchased the same item of property by two successive sale deeds. Purchase by the defendants was dated 10-2-1976 and that by the plaintiff was dated 14-2-1977. The opposite party No. 1 instituted Title Suit No. 81 of 1977 on 23-6-1977 against the petitioners as defendants praying for permanent injunction. In that suit, the plaintiff was appointed as receiver on 22-12-1977. The trial court directed:--'Considering all these facts, I feel it just and convenient that the plaintiff be appointed as receiver in respect of the suit property till disposal of the suit. He is to render accounts regularly to the court.'The suit was disposed of by judgment and decree dated 29-4-1978 and 4-5-1978 respectively. The trial court held that the earlier sale deed of the defendants 1 and 2 was a genuine one and Rajalaxmi's title to the disputed property had been duly conveyed to the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Satyanarayan Murty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-17-1982
Reported in: [1984]147ITR140(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, C.J. 1. This is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Cuttack Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The following question has been referred for the opinion of the court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from property received on partition by the assessee is assessable as the income of the Hindu undivided family consisting of the assessee and his wife ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1974-75 previous year ending with March 31, 1974. An HUF was the owner of a business carried on in the name and style of Sri Durga Stores at Berhampur in Ganjam District. Up to the assessment year 1968-69, the said business was being assessed in the status of an HUF. During the accounting year 1968-69, K. Satyanarayana Murty (present assessee) claimed partition of the family assets amongst himself as the karta, his two major sons...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagabandhu Roul
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-17-1982
Reported in: [1984]145ITR153(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. On the application of the Revenue made under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act of 1961, this court directed 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 :'(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, at the point of time when penalty was imposed there was lack of jurisdiction in the authority imposing penalty ? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally competent to reverse its final decision in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act ' Pursuant to our direction, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the questions.2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the trade of tobacco and tobacco products. The relevant assessment years are 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessee returned incomes of Rs. 12,736 and Rs. 9,925 respectively for the two years. The ITO rejected the return and assessed income of Rs. 50,810 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sahu Trading Co. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-16-1982
Reported in: [1983]54STC122(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. On the assessee's application this reference has been made by the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the following question has been referred for opinion of the court :Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was justified to hold that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax had no power to accept the declarations without assigning the reason for such acceptance ?2. The assessee is a registered dealer. The relevant periods are the quarter ending 31st March, 1973 and the year 1973-74. The assessee applied for registration on 2nd January, 1973, but the certificate of registration was actually granted on 26th April, 1973. The Sales Tax Officer made the assessment for the quarter ending 31st March, 1973, under Section 12(5) of the Act. For the year 1973-74, the claim of deduction advanced by the assessee on account ...
Tag this Judgment!Kulamani Kar and ors. Vs. Orissa Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-subordinate ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-10-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori63
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. Challenge in this application for a writ of certiorari is to the order made by the Tribunal constituted under Section 57-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') accepting an application of opposite parties 4 to 7. The ground on which challenge has been laid is that the application under Sub-section (3) of Section 57-A of the Act was barred by limitation and the Tribunal had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the application and give relief on its basis,2. Section 57-A (3) of the Act provides:--'Any trustee or trustees desiring to get any trust declared to be a religious or charitable trust of a public nature under Sub-clause (e) of Clause (24) of Section 2 may make an application to the Tribunal in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. Provided that no application under this sub-section shall be maintainable if,-- (a) xx xx xx xx (b) it is filed after the date of expiry of a period of six months from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Management, Nayagarh Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-10-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori105
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is the Board of Management of the Nayagarh Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited while petitioner No. 2 is its erstwhile President. The Board was elected on 25-11-76 and petitioner No. 2 was elected as its President on 31-8-76. Under the Bye-laws of the Bank, the term of office of a committee was 3 years or until a new committee was formed. The new committee was to be taken as constituted when after fresh election, nominations were received from Government for formation of the committee. Soon after the election was over, a defeated candidate filed Dispute Case No. 3/76-77 before the Assistant Registrar challenging the election of the committee. In a revision filed against the original order relating to stay of operation of the election, being Revision Case No. 33/76, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed an order on 1-9-76 staying the taking over of the management of the Bank by the petitioner-Board. The direction dated 2-9-76 ran thus:...
Tag this Judgment!Partha Sarathi Guru and ors. Vs. Utkal University and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-09-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori66
B.N. Misra, J.1. The petitioners who had taken the Annual Intermediate Examination in Arts of the Utkal University from the Kharasrota College Centre, Singhpur in the year 1982 have challenged the notification of the University, dated 5-6-82, Annexure 6, cancelling the result of the candidates who had taken the I. A. Examination, 1982 from the aforesaid Centre.2. Opposite party No. 2 is the Principal of the Kharasrota College, Singhpur. The Annual I. A. Examination was held at the College Centre from 15-3-82 till 12-4-82. After the two persons who had been appointed as Centre Superintendents declined to act as such one after the other, the examination commenced on 15-3-82 with opposite party No. 2 acting as the Centre Superintendent, vide Annexure 2 (b). Dr. P. C. Mohapatra, one of the two Supervisors appointed for the Centre, inspected the Centre on 16-3-82. It is alleged by the petitioners that as Dr. Mohapatra had an unpleasant incident with an outsider, he submitted a biased report...
Tag this Judgment!Dhruba Sahu (Dead) and After Him Nalumoni Sahu and anr. Vs. Paramanand ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori24; 54(1982)CLT560
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The second appeal is by the defendant against a decree of reversal.2. The plaintiff and the defendants are agnates. The defendant executed and registered a deed of gift on 3-6-1968 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit lands; but subsequently he cancelled the same by a deed of cancellation dated 10-3-1970 on the ground that it was fraudulently obtained from him. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant being issueless and a widower was being looked after by him and being satisfied with him, the defendant voluntarily executed a deed of gift which was duly accepted by him and he remained in possession of the properties since the deed of gift. It was alleged that the defendant at the instance of some of the enemies of the plaintiff wanted to dispossess the plaintiff and hence he filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the suit properties.3. The defendant's contention was t...
Tag this Judgment!Baruna Giri and ors. Vs. Rajakishore Giri and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori107
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the suit lands described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint.2. The plaintiffs belong to villageKudarsahi in the district of Singhbhumin Bihar while the defendants belong tovillage Brahmanpose in the district ofMayurbhanj in Orissa. Distance betweenthe two villages is about 12 miles. Thesuit lands are situate at the village ofthe defendants. The case for the plaintiffs was that their forefathers findingit difficult to cultivate the suit lands andbeing unable to carry paddy from Orissato Bihar on account of Control Ordersimposing restrictions on movement ofpaddy let out the suit lands to ChandraMohan Giri, the father of defendants 1and) 2 on Thika basis on a cash rent ofRs. 80/-. Chandra Mohan Giri cultivatedthe suit lands as a lessee till his deathwhich occurred in January, 1965. Hewas then in arrears of cash rent for theyear 1964-65. So the plaintiff No. 1Baruna Gi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›