Orissa Court November 1984 Judgments
Bansidhar Das Vs. Duryodhan Majhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori84
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant against an affirming judgment.2. The second appeal came up before our learned brother Dr. Justice B. N. Misra who did not agree with the views expressed by our learned brother Justice B. K. Ray, as he then was, in Second Appeal No. 161/77 (Madhab Biswal v. Aintha alias Pabana Senapati) disposed of on 2-1-1979 and followed by learned brother Justice R. N. Misra (as he then was) in the case of Ghasi Paikray v. Dinabandhu Muduli, reported in (1980) 50 Cut LT 108 with regard to interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and directed that the appeal should be heard by a Division Bench. Since the second appeal has been placed before the Division Bench for disposal, we will not only decide the question of law with regard to interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Act but also finally dispose of the appeal itself and, therefore, it is necessary to state the f...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshlal Santuka Vs. Sureshlal Santuka
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR44
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, initiating an enquiry regarding assessment of rent payable in respect of three shop rooms forming subject-matter of the partition suit. The defendant is the petitioner.2. The facts leading to the present petition may be stated in brief. The petitioner and the opposite party (plaintiff) are natural brothersbelong to a trading family. The opposite party filed a suit for: partition against the petitioner claiming half share in the suit property consisting of land and buildings. In course of the proceedings of the suit, he made a petition registered as Misc. Case No. 342 of 1982 under Order 40, Rule 1 for appointment of a receiver in respect of the suit property and further made another petition registered as Misc. Case. No. 343 of 1932 under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) praying for issuance of temporary injunction in order to r...
Tag this Judgment!Doshei Dei and ors. Vs. Rama Routa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori77; 1985(I)OLR12
K.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif, Puri rejecting the plaintiffs prayer to lead further evidence for proof of documents.2. In order to appreciate the point which arises for consideration, it is necessary that the facts pleaded by both parties to the suit be elucidated in brief. The suit land bears C S. Khata No. 394 with an area of Ac. Order 27 appertaining to C. S. Khata No. 1022 in village Samanga with nine standing cocoanut plants Acording to the plaintiffs (petitioners) the suit land previously belonged to late Durga Charan Jagdeb Ray. He sold the same in favour of late Jogi Pradhan predecessor-in-interest of the plaintifs by virtue of a registered saledeed executed on 26-1-44. Late Jogi Pradhan was in possession thereof. After his death there was a partition amongst his sons and the suit land fell to the share of the plaintiffs' branch. The plaintiffs had been in peaceful possession thereof on the strength of their own t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krupasindhu Behera Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR27; [1985]59STC269(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the initiation of a recovery proceeding under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') in this writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and has prayed to quash the notice issued to him for that purpose.2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was carrying on business of sale and purchase of goods as a partner in a firm registered as a dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. There was an assessment under Section 12(4) of the Act for the year 1967-68 making a demand of Rs.2103.21 paise by order dated 30.5.1969 which was not paid. After dissolution & the firm, it was detected that some turnover has escaped assessment. A proceeding was initiated under Section 12(8) of the Act and by assessment order, dated 24.2.1970 the amount of tax levied on that account was Rs. 1555)/-, Though the order of assessment was challenged in appeal, the same was confirmed. The total tax due was thus...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindranath Prusty Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-24-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1392
P.C. Misra, J.1. The appellant has been found guilty under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the Act') and under Section 161 of the Penal Code for receiving Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from one Gangadhar Mishra on 7.4.1976 and has been convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month.2. The charges framed against the appellant are as follows:(i) Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) : For having accepted Rs. 500/-from one Gangadhar Misra (P.W. 1) on 7.4.1976 for showing favour in the matter of a litigation and enquiry between P.W. 1 and Gajanan Agarwalla.(ii) Under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code : For having accepted Rs. 500/- on 7.4.1976 from P.W. 1 for showing him favour in connection with the aforesaid litigation and enquiry.(iii) Under Section 5(1)(a) read with Section 5(2) of the Act.For having accept...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Majhi and ors. Vs. Mst. Raimati Kisani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori168
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The defendants in Title Suit No. 35/46 of 1966 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur have filed this petition Under Section 115 of the C. P. Code challenging the order, allowing the application filed by the opposite parties for amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiffs-opposite parties filed the suit for partition of the lands described in Schedule 'A' and 'B' of the plaint. The defendants in their written statement took the plea that lands under Schedule 'B' are their self-acquired properties and as such not available for partition.The trial Court accepting this contention of the defendants decreed the plaintiff's suit in respect of 'A' schedule lands and dismissed the suit in respect of the 'B' schedule lands. Against this decision the defendants preferred an Appeal (Title Appeal No. 16/79). The Appellate Court set aside the decision of the trial Court and remanded the suit to the trial Court for fresh disposal after recording the evidence on two...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Kunjumon Vs. Managing Director, Central Ware Housing Corporation ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR1
B.N. Misra, J.1. Though notice of admission and hearing had been issued, with consent of Mr. R.K. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, the matter is heard.2. Admit.3. The facts of, this case may be briefly noted. The petitioner was working as the Ware House Manager of the Central Ware House, Nayabazar, Cuttack, in 1978. On 19.12.1978 the petitioner was placed under suspension on certain allegations of misconduct. Opposite party No. 1 decided to hold an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and issued statements of charges to him, vide Annex-1 dated 15.1.1980. Thereafter, opposite party No.- 1 appointed opposite party No. 2 as the enquiry officer, vide Annex-2 dated 27.2.1980. On 27.3.1980 the petitioner applied to opposite party No. 3 for permission to take the assistance of one Mr. K.A. Nayar, Ware House Manager, Rampur, U. P., to conduct his case in the departmental enquiry i...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmidhar Lenks Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR34
B.N. Misra, J.1. Though notice on admission and hearing had been issued, with consent of Mr. M. R. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.C Panigrahi, learned Addl. Govt. Adv. this writ application is heard.2. Admit.3. The facts of this case may be briefly noted. The petitioner was working as a Forest Ranger under opposite party No. 1 until his retirement on superannuation on 31.8.1979. Opposite party No. 2 sanctioned provisional pension and provisional death-cum-retirement gratuity in favour of the petitioner on 2.6.1980, vide Annex-2. After the petitioner's retirement some instances of his misconduct during the period of his service came to the notice of opposite party No. 4, who called for the explanation of the petitioner, vide his letter dated 8. 7.1980, Annex-3. Annex-4. dated 7.11.1980 is the explanation submitted by the petitioner On the ground that the allegations of misconduct against the petitioner were proposed to be enquired into the payment of provisional pen...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. H.N. Bhavanasi Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through Its Secret ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR179
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for arrear salary, arrear pension and security deposit of the deceased husband of the petitioner outstanding with the State Government. Petitioner has also claimed pension under the Family Pension Scheme as widow of late A. D. Bhavanasi who expired on 10.10. 1968.2. Late Bhavanasi was a ministerial servant under Madras Presidency.On formation of the Province of Orissa on 1.4.1935, he became an employee under the Provincial Government of Orissa. While continuing as such he retired on superannuation on 13.3.1957. Thereafter he was re-employed till 13.6.1959. While in service he was occupying a Government quarters on rent. After retirement he continued to occupy the same till his death and since then widow of late A. D. Bhavanasi and his legal representatives occupied the same. Late Bhavanasi filed a suit claiming to be the owner of the house which he lost. The State Government filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. of C. Ex. and Cu ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-20-1984
Reported in: 1999(108)ELT358(Ori)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.V. Murty appearing for the opposite parties.2. Dispute in this case relates to the period between 17-12-1972 to 28-2-1973 and 1-3-1973 to 6-2-1976 and it was a part of the dispute raised by it in O.J.C No. 1071/1977 which was disposed of by this Court on 21-10-1982 with the following directions :-'3. We think the appropriate way to dispose of this writ application would be to direct that the claim laid by the petitioner-company for exemption on the different grounds namely on account of the fact that its realisation is already barred by limitation and the pre-condition to earn exemption having been satisfied no duty was collectable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, would be appropriately examined by the authorities under the Act and the petitioner should be given adequate opportunity to place its case and a reasoned order in case the petitioners stand is not accepted should be made so that the petitioner would be entitled...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »