Orissa Court February 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramachandra Kanthari and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT303; 1984(I)OLR316
ORDER1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate.2. In our view, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner No. 1, namely, Ramachandra Kanthari, should be admitted to bail. As the other petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the deceased to death, we are not inclined to admit him to bail.3. The application is allowed in part. It is allowed in respect of the petitioner No. 1 and rejected in respect of the petitioner No. 2. The petitioner Ramachandra Kanthari is to be released on a bail of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karafuto at Jetport.4. We notice that while rejecting the application for bail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not refer to the materials placed before him against both the petitioners, and passed a cryptic order. A Court of Session, while considering an application for bail, should pass a reasone...
E.M.i. Records Ltd. and anr. Vs. H.M.V. House and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ori91
B.N. Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 17-12-81 passed by the learned District Judge, Sundargarh dismissing the appellants' petition (or interim injunction in Misc. Case No. 31 of 1980 arising out of Title Suit No. 3 of 1980 pending in the court of the District Judge, Sundargarh.2. The plaintiffs are the appellants. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company registered in the United Kingdom and Monisha Lahari is the attorney of plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2 is an Indian Company and the said Monisha Lahari is also the attorney of plaintiff No. 2. Their suit against the respondents, who are defendants in the court below, is for permanent injunction and damages in a combined action of infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs' case may be briefly noted. They are reputed manufacturers of inter alia apparatus, instruments and devices for recording, reproduction, transmission or receiption of sound, television apparatus, gramophone needles and parts and accessories thereof an...
Bijoy Kumar Choudhury Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: [1984]148ITR146(Orissa)
1. In an application filed by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ' Act'), this court directed the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law arising out of its order for the opinion of this court and the Tribunal has referred the following question for opinion of this court: ' Keeping in view the terms of the agreement relied upon for authorising payment to the karta, whether the payment is admissible under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 '2. This Court further directed that the Tribunal would go into the question of the agreement and indicate as to what, in its opinion, is the real purport and as to whether such a claim was with reference to the Work done by the karta to the family or work done by the karta for the joint family business relating to the partnership firm. 3. This, case relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee is a HUF consisting of the karta, his wife and a minor son. The assessee is a partner...
P. Nirmal Rao Vs. Commnr. of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR540
ORDER* * *13. In an application filed by the asessee under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') this Court directed the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law arising out of its order for opinion of this Court and the Tribunal has referred the following question for opinion of this Court:'Keeping in view the terms of the agreement relied upon for authorising payment to the Karta, whether the payment is admissible under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act of 1961?'This Court further directed that the Tribunal would go into the question of the agreement and indicate as to what, in its opinion, is the real purport and as to whether such a claim was with reference to the work done by the Karta to the family or work done by the Karta for the joint family business relating to the Partnership firm.2. This case relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee is a H. U. F. consisting of Katta, his wife and minor children. The assessee is a partne...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrs. Illa PandA.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Ori)13
Mohanty, J. - These applications under Act, are by the revenue calling upon the s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, to state a case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, keeping the amended provision of s. 273 w.e.f. 1-4-1970 in view, the deletion of penalty was warranted ?'2. The relevant asst. yrs. are 1962-63, 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1969-70. The assessee submitted voluntary returns for the above years and the ITO held that the assessee had, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the estimate of advance tax payable by her in terms of s. 212(3) of the Act. So a proceeding u/s 273(1)(b) of the Act was initiated against the assessee and ultimately penalties of Rs. 7,920, Rs. 2,076, Rs. 2,635, Rs. 21,590 for the asst. yrs. 1962-63, 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1969-70 respectively, were levied. The matter was carried in appeal to the AAC and it was contended there that since the ini...
Narada Moharana Vs. Pramila Kumari Dei
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori221
P.C. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant in the lower appellate court is the appellant against an order dated 13-12-1983 passed in Misc. Case No. 155 of 1983 by the Subordinate Judge of Jagatsinghpur.2. The appellant had filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and alternatively, for a preliminary decree declaring his 50% interest therein. It was also prayed for a declaration that the sale deed dated 25-10-1952 was illegal on the grounds stated in the plaint. He also prayed for confirmation of possession and alternatively, for recovery of possession of the suit property. There was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal P. C. in which a receiver was appointed in respect of the suit property. Subsequently the said receiver continued during the pendency of the suit. The suit was disposed of by judgment dated 6-5-1983 in which the suit was dismissed on contest The plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal against the said judgment and also filed an application in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›