Orissa Court October 1986 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.
Janajivan Foods Private Ltd. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT737; 1986(II)OLR578; [1987]65STC185(Orissa)
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The question raised in this writ petition is whether 'vermicelli'' commonly known as 'Semiya' is covered by Entry No. 1 or Entry No. 13 of Lists-C for which the rate of tax on the taxable turnover is 4 per cent, as contended by the petitioner, or it is covered under the residuary item under Entry No. 101 for which the rate of tax is 8 per cent as has been held by the taxing authority under the Orissa Sales Tax Act.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer and carries on business in 'vermicelli (Semiya)' on wholesale basis on receiving the stock from Hyderabad. The Taxing Authority issued a notice Under Section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act pursuant to which the petitioner produced the. Sales Register, Stock Register, Sale Bills and Stock Transfer Notes et cetera for examination of the assessing authority. The entire records produced by the petitioner were examined and the assessing officer found the gross turnover of the Rs. 4, 88,585. 90. The petitioner had paid...
Nishi SwaIn and ors. Vs. Bikala Charan Swain
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR654
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff under Order 43, Rule 1(u), CPC, arises out of an order of remand.2. In the impugned order, the appellate Court observed ;'I need not go into the merit of the judgment which has gone in favour of the plaintiff as there are some salient points which have not been thrashed out in the said judgment and as such in my view the said suit ought to be remanded for clarification on the said points 'At another stage dealing with the counter claim by the defendant, it was observed ;'In the said counter claim he has given the description of the land fallen to his share in a general way without appending a map in respect of the suit property claimed by him. So it will not be possible to draw the actual line of demarcation between their respective shares without further verification of the spot. So it is badly necessary in this case that a commissioner should be appointed to locale and draw the line of demarcation in terms of the partition deed and al...
Mahamed Isak and Zubeda Begum Vs. Land Acquisition Collector
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR639
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These two civil revisions arise out or the orders refusing to exercise power Under Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure, for correction of the land acquisition award.2. As the question involved in both the petitions is the same, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Lands belonging to both the petitioners were acquired Petitioners not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector objected to the same and the matter was referred to the Court for decision. While the Court enhanced the compensation it did not take into consideration the question of payment of interest as is provided Under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Having noticed that interest has not been awarded, petitioners filed applications Under Section 152, CPC, for correction of the award being of the view that omission to award statutory interest. is not an accidental slip. The applications having been rejected, the present civil revisions have been...
State Bank of India Vs. Vathi Samba Murty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-20-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Ori50; [1988]64CompCas834(Orissa)
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner against an appellate judgment confirming the decision of the trial court. In view of bar of a second appeal under Section 102 of Civil P.C. this civil revision has been filed.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant drew Rs. 2,000/- on the basis of a cheque from his personal account although he had no funds available in that account for which the overdrawal was permitted. In spite of demand, the same not having been repaid, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 2,000/-as principal amount and Rs. 979.39 paise towards interest.3. The case of the defendant is that he had two accounts in the bank. One current account was in his own name and the other current account was in the name of the partnership firm of which he was a partner, His case was that in the partnership account there was enough money and the amount was really intended to he drawn from that account and there was no necessity for permitting the overdrawal from hi...
Purna Palai Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-20-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1406
B.K. Behera, J.1. The appellant with three co-accused persons, namely, Bachha Khatai, Batu alias Bhagawan Swain and Pampu alias Paramjit Sirtgh, stood their trial in the Court of Session at Sambalpur being charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code (for short, the 'Code). The facts of the prosecution case and the plea of the defence of denial by the appellant and the co-accused persons have been set out in the impugned judgment. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that owing to the rivalry between the members of the Shakti Club to which the deceased belonged and the members of the Bazar group including the appellant and the co-accused persons besides others, the deceased was chased and attacked on January 30, 1981, in the evening while he was coming from Kadampada side and assaulted in front of the hospital by means of lathis by the appellant and the co-accused persons for which he fell unconscious and was removed to the hospital at Hirakud where he was firs...
Budhi Sahoo and ors. Vs. Nilamani Paschimakabat and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC95; 1986(II)OLR657
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Claimants are the appellants in this appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The claim case was fixed to 2-8-1982 for hearing. Case of the claimants is that they could not receive the letter of their Advocate intimating the date fixed and accordingly they could not take part in the hearing. The application had been dismissed on the ground that there was no material in support of the claim.3. Normally in absence of materials, the appellate Court has no scope for interference against the order. The scope for getting a chance to furnish materials before the Tribunal after dismissal of the claim petition for absence of the claimant on the date of hearing even for sufficient cause has been sealed in the decision of this Court reported in ILR (1981) 1 Cutt. 474 : (Suresh Kumar Moharana and Ors. v. Brundaban Barik and Anr. ). However, technicality should not stand on the way of proper adjudication of a manner. T...
Tatanagar Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Ajanta Enterprisers and a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori107; 63(1987)CLT5
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendants are the appellants in this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(u), Civil P.C. against an order under Order 38, Rule 5, C.P.C., directing them to furnish security.2. Money Suit No. 324 of 1986 was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First 'Court, Cuttack, for recovery of Rs. 2,84,852.89 paise alleged to have been taken by the appellants as loan from the plaintiff-respondent 1. In the said suit plaintiff filed an application for attachment of some aluminium ingots which were alleged to have been intended to be taken out of the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff. Alternatively it was prayed that the security should be directed to be furnished by the defendants. The trial Court attached the aluminium ingots by an ex parte order. After appearance, the appellants raised objection on the ground that they were only carriers. The attachment was vacated by the trial Court which was challenged in this Court in Misc. Appeal No. ...
Narayan Chandra Jena Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori163
L. Rath, J.1. The issues whether an application for renewal of the contractcarriage permit can be refused on the consideration of past conduct of the permit,holder and whether before such order ofrefusal is passed, the applicant is entitled to a hearing are questions which fall for decision in this application made under Arts. 226 and227 of the Constitution.2. The facts adumbrated are that the petitioner, before expiry of his All Orissa Contract Carriage Permit, had applied for renewal of the permit. No representations had been filed against such renewal application, but the Chairman, State Transport Authority, Orissa, by his order dt. 27-5-1985 (Annexure 1) rejected the application on basis of the V.C.R. (Vehicle check report) statements showing that the vehicle had been found on three occasions being utilised as stage carriage and on few occasions it had been found plying with passengers in excess of the prescribed seating capacity. An appeal was carried by the petitioner before the ...
Ratnakar Sahani and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori194; 62(1986)CLT719
Rath, J.1. The primary question urged in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether issue of notice under Section 254 of the Orissa Municipal Act (Annexure-2) for removal of encroachment on road side lands is authorised, since according to the petitioners, road side land is not Road with which Section 254 of the Orissa Municipal Act concerns itself. Besides, the petitioners have also impugned the action of the Municipality on the grounds of lack of reasonable notice to them to show cause against such demolition and that the action of the Municipality is not bona fide as the road to which the encroachment relates is stated to be 200 feet wide. According to the petitioners, there is no road of such width at Jharsuguda and hardly also exists at any other place in the State.2. The petitioners, who claim themselves to be petty artisans, state that they are landless persons and since were without houses of their own, constructed along with others some 25...
Kshitish Ch. Ray Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT641; 1986(II)OLR604
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The petitioner who was the highest bidder in a public auction for sale of five Ganja and Bhang shops at Balasore for the year 1986-87 and whose bid was accepted by the Collector and whose case was recommended by the Collector to the State Government for grant of the exclusive privilege, has impugned in this writ petition the order of the Collector for re-auction of the said five shops as per Annexure-8 as well as the order of the State Government directing re-auction as per Annexure-9.2. Petitioner's case is that pursuant to the notice issued by opposite party No. 1 on 12-2-1986 to hold auction sale of excise shops of Balasore District for the year 1986-87, the petitioner bade at the auction that was held on 28-2-1986. The upset price fixed was Rs 17,900/- per month. Petitioner's bid at Rs. 23,950/- per month was provisionally accepted. In accordance with the terms contained in the notice dated 12-2-1986, petitioner deposited two months' consideration money on the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »