Orissa Court October 1984 Judgments
Una Subbarao Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-1984
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC19; 1987(30)ELT105(Ori)
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in sugar- candy and allied articles having his place of business in the town of Berham pur in the District of Ganjam within the State of Orissa. According to him, the Sales Tax Officer (opposite party No. 2), Ganjam I Circle, Berham-pur, tried to collect tax on sugar-candy treating the same as an article other than sugar and levied tax illegally on the said item. By way of amendment under the powers conferred under Section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') the State Government published a list of articles in the Onssa Gazette (Extraordinary Gazette dated 23rd April, 1976) inter alia stating in entry No. 37 (in List A, i.e., List of goods exempted from Orissa sales tax) 'sugar' as defined in Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was exempted from Orissa sales tax. In another notification issued by the State Government in Item No. 78 of List C, i.e., List of goods subject to sal...
Tag this Judgment!Una Subba Rao Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC49(Orissa)
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in sugar-candy and allied articles having his place of business in the town of Berhampur in the District of Ganjam within the State of Orissa. According to him, the Sales Tax Officer (opposite party No. 2), Ganjam I Circle, Berhampur, tried to collect tax on sugar-candy treating the same as an article other than sugar and levied tax illegally on the said item. By way of amendment under the powers conferred under Section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') the State Government published a list of articles in the Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary Gazette dated 23rd April, 1976) inter alia stating in entry No. 37 (in List A, i.e., List of goods exempted from Orissa sales tax) 'sugar' as defined in item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was exempted from Orissa sales tax. In another notification issued by the State Government in item No. 78 of List C, i.e., List of goods subject to sales...
Tag this Judgment!P. Krishna Reddy and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: 58(1984)CLT644; 1984(II)OLR1089
B.K. Behera, J.1. These appeals arising out of the same judgment and order of conviction recorded by Mr. A. C. Das, Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack, holding each of the appellants to be guilty of the charge of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment.2. The appellants, it was alleged, had committed dacoity in the house of P. W. 1 during the night of May 17/18, 1980 and had removed cash and other articles by keeping the inmates of the house including P W. 1 under awe and after tying P. W. 1. On the basis of the first information report (Ext. 6) lodged by P. W. 1, investigation had been taken up, but no clue could be obtained until the last part of July, 1980. Thereafter on receiving some clues, the investigating agency arrested the appellants and on the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet ...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa State Power Loom Service Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Hrudanan ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: 58(1984)CLT566; 1984(II)OLR1051
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act and is engaged in the business of marketing textile products. The opp. party, Hrudananda Swain, was appointed as a Junior Clerk under the petitioner on 1.4.1979. On 20.1.1982 he was posted as Godown-in-charge of the godowns of the petitioner situated at Jhola Sahi and Ranihat, in the town of Cuttack. In his capacity as an employee of the petitioner the opp. party was entrusted with different textile products. On 25.3.1983 it was dected that he has committed breach of trust with respect to the properties entrusted to him. F.I.R. was lodged by the Managing Director of the petitioner-society before the Officer-in-charge, Purighat Police-Station and Purighat P.S Case No. 171 of 1983 was registered under Section 408, IPC, against the opposite party. The Officer-in-charge of the police-station, after investigating into the case, submitted final form mentioning that on account of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Kar Vs. Jagannath Swamy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: 1984(II)OLR1058
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. Plaintiff (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) claiming themselves as the managers and marfatdars of plaintiff No. 1, the Lord Jagannath, filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit lands belonging to plaintiff No. 1 and for mesne profits from the year 1971-72.2. The plaint case is that the suit lands measuring Ac. 1. 38 cents belonging to plaintiff No. 1 were in their possession and management since the time of their ancestors. They were utilising the usufructs thereof for offering bhoga to the deity. They were getting the lands cultivated through tenants and were obtaining the Rajbhag from them. In the year 1964 they inducted defendant No. 2 as a tenant, but as defendant No. 2 did not say any Rajbhag, they filed O.L.R. Case No. 274 of 1966 before the Revenue Officer, Kodala, for realisation of Rajbhag. In that proceeding defendant No. 2 denied the Landlordship of the plaintiffs and took the plea that he had been inducted as the tenant by defendant No. 1. The said O...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Prasad Misra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC40(Orissa)
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. This case was heard along with O. J. C. Nos. 289 and 290 of 1978 as common questions of law were raised in these cases.2. The Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur-III Circle (opposite party No. 5), issued a requisition under Section 4 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') to opposite party No. 2, the Special Certificate Officer, Sambalpur, for recovery of dues under the Orissa Taxation (On Goods carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act along with interest and costs to the tune of Rs. 49,316.73 by a certificate under the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act. On receipt of notice under Section 6 of the Act the petitioner filed objection under Section 8 of the Act, but the same was rejected by opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal and revision before the Additional District Magistrate, Sambalpur (opposite party No. 3), and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Sambalpur (opposite party No. 4), respectively, but t...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Sekhar Pal and ors. Vs. Musmat Tapoi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Ori130
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This application Under Section 115 of the C. P. C. is by the appellants in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1961 pending before the Subordinate Judge, Athagarh against the order rejecting their application under Order 41 Rule 27, of the C. P. C. to produce additional evidence.2. The opposite party No. 1 filed the suit (T. S. No. 16 of 1979) for declaration of her right, title and interest in the suit property, for confirmation of possession and for permanent. injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.3. In course of the trial of the suit, the petitioners wanted to summon one Kunja Panda to produce his sale deed as he had purchased some of the properties (plot No. 7) described in the schedule of the plaint. They wanted to prove thereby that the description of the suit properties as well as the boundary given in the plaint are incorrect. In spite of summons the said witness did not appear before t...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Patra and anr. Vs. Saraswata Bidyapitha and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-1984
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR98
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The order of the Munsif, Puri, dated 3.12.1982 in Original Suit No. 141/81-1 rejecting, the petitioners application that the suit should be held to abate underSection 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 ('the Act' for short).Saraswata Bidyapitha, Virtung, through its President, Durga Charan Mohanty (opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2) and the said Durga Charan Mohanty in his personal capacity filed the aforesaid suit claiming the following reliefs:a) Permanently resrtain the defendant from interfering in the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property and causing any waste or damage to the suit properties by any means whatsoever.b) Award cost of the suit against the defendants.c) Grant such other reliefs as the Court might deem fit proper.The petitioners were arrayed as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 as defendants Nos. 3 and 4 respectively in the said suit. The disputed properties we...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhu Behera and ors. Vs. Krishna Chandra Sutar and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori93; 1985(I)OLR38
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The short question for decision in this case is whether in a suit for a specific performance of a contract for sale, instituted by a purchaser against the vendor, a stranger to the contract, who contending that the contracted property is a joint family property, of which he is also the co-owner, wants to intervene in the suit, is entitled to be added as a party. The question having been answered in the negative by the Court below, the intervenes have filed this revision petition challenging the order.The facts material for the purpose of the present proceeding are that the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No. 64 of 1981 for a decree of specific performance of a contract for sale of the lands described in the schedule to the plaint. In the plaint they alleged inter alia that opposite parties 3 to 5 (defendants 1 to 3) constituted a joint family with the opposite party No. 3 (defendant No. 1) as Karta. In his capacity as Karta of the family the said def...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirathi Jena and anr. Vs. Parsuram Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori137; 58(1984)CLT632
1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against the reversing judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Balasore dismissing their suit for partition.The appellants filed the suit (Title SuitNo. 60 of 1975) for partition of propertydescribed in Schedule 'Kha' to the plaint andfor allotment of half share in their favour andthe other half share to defendants 4 and 5.They also prayed for buying out the undivideddwelling house situated on plot Nos. 790 and791 under Section 4 of the Partition Act. Thegenealogy showing the relationship betweenthe parties as given in the plaint is reproducedhereinbelow : -- Kebei Jena ______________________|________________________ | | | |Denei Rudra Kurup Budhi | = KuturiAnanta D-6 |________________ |____________________________ | | | | |Parsuram Nandi Bhagirathi Ratnakar Michhei D.1 D.3 P.1 P.2 D.7Of the four sons of the common ancestor Debei Jena, Kurup and Budh died issueless. Denei and Rudra, the other two sons of Debei became the owners in possession ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »