Orissa Court June 1985 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.
Sarbeswar Malik Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1721
B.K. Behera, J. 1. The appellant stood charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code (for short, 'the Code') for intentionally causing the death of Narayan Mallik (to be referred to hereinafter as 'the deceased') on May 18, 1980, in village Bayakuda in the district of Puri. The appellant with the co-accused Ramachandra Mallik, his father, also stood charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code for committing the murder of the deceased in furtherance of their common intention. A separate charge had been framed against the co-accused Ramachandra under Section 323 of the Code for voluntarily causing hurt to Mali alias Malati Dei (P. W. 1) and Pramod Kumar Mallik (P. W. 2), the widow and son respectively of the deceased. We would briefly narrate the case of the prosecution. The deceased was a co-villager of the appellant and the co-accused and had his residential house adjacent to the cocoanut garden of the appellant and the co-accused, Raghu Senapati, who originally owned the ...
Narayan Sahu Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT201; 1986CriLJ102
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner in this revision challenges the legality of the order dt. 10th of February, 1984, issued to him under Section 141 of the Criminal P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') in Case No. 14/51 of 1984 requiring the petitioner to remove the obstruction caused on the public place by 18th of February, 1984. The notice in question was in respect of Ac. O. 03 decimals of land pertaining to plot No. 1762, Khata No. 433 of mouza Chandipur. The main ground of attack is that the notice under Section 131(1) of the Code was never served on the petitioner and. therefore, the direction under Section 141 of the Code is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the alleged construction is at a distance of more than one hundred feet from the national highway and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it will impair the free flow of traffic.2. The lower court records reveal that on 30th of January, 1984, the learned Magistrate perused the reports of the Sub...
Jaypore Sugar Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Chief Accounts Officer Excise ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT287; 1987(30)ELT260(Ori)
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner company is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Rayagada in the district of Koraput which manufactures sugar. Section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (for short 'the Act') provides that there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured in India and a duty on salt manufactured in, or imported by land into any part of India as, and at the rates, set forth in the First Schedule. As per Section 2(d) of the Act, 'excisable goods' mean goods specified in the First Schedule as being subject to a duty of excise. Item No. 1 of the First Schedule is 'sugar' produced in a factory ordinarily using power in the course of production of sugar. In order to achieve maximum production the Government of India decided to give incentives to the manufacturers of sugar. One of the incentives was rebate in the...
G. Laxminarayan Naidu Vs. Chitibaina Yerraiah and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1839
ORDERB.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 figure as the accused persons in a case of cheating under Section 420 of the I.P.C. (for short, the 'Code') instituted by the opposite party No. 1 as the complainant alleging that the petitioner, having placed an order for supply of coal with the opposite party No. 1 for Rs. 44,043.50 paise and having paid Rs. 35,000/- by a cheque and kept the balance amount of Rs. 9,043.50 paise to be paid, placed another order for Rs. 33,097,60 paise and drew a cheque for Rs. 42,141.10 paise bearing No. 034058 dt. Jan. 10, 1984 through his clerk, the opposite party No. 2, which was returned by the Bank as the petitioner had no money to his credit and in spite of several correspondences, the petitioner failed to clear up the arrears. On the basis of these averments in the petition of complaint and the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 200 of the Cr, P.C. cognizance has been taken of an offence punishable under Section ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›