Orissa Court September 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.
Food Corporation of India Vs. Ghanashyamdas Agarwal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori298; 58(1984)CLT472
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The order of the Subordinate Judge, Titlagarh dt. 21-7-1981 in Misc. Case No, 29/80 allowing application of the opposite party under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act (called 'the Act' for short) for appointment of an Arbitrator is sought to be impugned in this petition under Section 115, C.P.C. The short question that arises for decision is whether Section 8(2) of the Act applies to the present case in view of the express provision in the Arbitration Clause in the agreement.2. The opposite party entered into agreements with the petitioner to let out his godowns to the latter. The agreements contained an Arbitration Clause in the following terms :--All disputes and differences, arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this agreement whatsoever, shall be referred to the sole arbitration of any person nominated by the Secretary of Ministry of the Government of India, administratively dealing with the contract as the administrative head of such Minis...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Radharaman Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR445(Orissa)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (for short the 'Act'), by the Department requiring the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short the 'Tribunal'), tostate a case and refer the questions of law 'arising out of its order for theopinion of this court.2. The opposite party-assessee is a doctor having income from salary and from private practice. He had neither maintained any books of account nor a professional diary for his professional income and such income was used to be returned on estimate. For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee returned his professional income at Rs. 2,000 and the original assessment was completed on that basis.. Subsequently, on receipt of information from Government Departments to the effect that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 22,724 by way of consultation and injection fees, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act. A notice under'section 148 of the Ac...
Satyapriya Mohapatra Vs. Ashok Pandit and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori187
Behera, J.1. The petitioner has made this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the impugned orders passed by the original and the appellate authorities under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (for short, the 'Act') allowing an application made by Ashok Pandit (Opposite Party No. 1) for eviction of thepetitioner from the house belonging to the former in the city of Cuttack which had been let out to Baikuntha Bihari Acharya (Opposite party No. 2) on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- in the year 1963 and which had illegally been sublet by the opposite party No. 2 to the present petitioner. Eviction had been sought by the Opposite Party No. 1 on the grounds of illegal subletting of the house taken on rent by the Opposite Party No. 2 in favour of the petitioner, wilful default in the payment of rent and requirement of the house by the Opposite Party No. 1 for the purpose of repairs. The petitioner had challenged these grounds and had also contended before th...
Srimati Sukantilata Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: 1984(II)OLR919
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks a mandamus to the opposite parties directing them to admit her to the B. Ed. course in one of the Government Training Colleges.2. Prospectus was issued inviting applications for admission to the 1984-85 B. Ed. course conducted by the Government Training Colleges at Cuttack, Balasore, Berhampur, Sambalpur, Bolangir and Angul. There were 860 seats in all. 50 per cent thereof was reserved for in-service graduate teachers of the State, 5 seats were reserved for the wives and children of defence personnel and ex-service personnel and 10 seats were reserved for the candidates for the outlying Oriya speaking tracts. 405 seats were available for fresh candidates. The 405 seats were distributed district wise according to population, taking the 1971 census figures as the basis. An applicant was required to submit the application form duly filled in and to indicate two options as regards the...
Nilambar Patra Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-03-1984
Reported in: 1984(II)OLR911
B.K. Behera, J.1. The appellant and three other accused persons, namely, Prahallad Mohapatra, Anirudha Sethi and Bhola alias Ramachandra Lenka, stood trial in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Balasore, being charged under Sec 395 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short, the 'Code') for commission of dacoity in the house of Ashamani (hereinafter described as the 'deceased' ) in village Bajana in the district of Balasore during the night of March 3,1983, after she was dragged out of her house and assaulted in a field and while the appellant Nilambar guarded her in the field where she lay injured, the companion accused persons broke open her house and removed articles. The appellant and the co-accused Prahallad and Anirudha also stood charged under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 of the Code fox having committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder in furtherance of their common intention by dealing fist blows and kicks to her in the field on March 30, 1983 which, the prosecutio...
Srimati Gaud and anr. Vs. Udaya Chandra Patel and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-03-1984
Reported in: 1984(II)OLR924
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision petition by the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 68/17 of 1978-80 is directed against the order dated 22. 9.1982 of the Subordinate Judge, Deogarb, accepting the written statement of opposite party No. 3, Lambodar Naik [defendant No. 3(a)] who had been set ex parte earlier. A perusal of the order shows that on that date the Court accepted some documents filed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on condoning the delay, accepted the, written statement filed by defendant No. 3 on consideration of his application, proceeded to examine the witnesses on behalf of defendants and posted the suit to 30. 9. 1982 for argument. In this revision petition only that portion of the order accepting the written statement of opposite party No. 3 is challenged.2. Perusal of the order-sheet of the trial Court reveals that opposite party No. 3 was set ex parte on 16. 11.1978. Thereafter the suit was dismissed for default of the plaintiffs, several times and was restored to file on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›