Orissa Court September 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.
Genelec Limited and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: [1986]63STC439(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a company having its registered office in Bombay and a business office in Calcutta. It entered into an agreement with the National Aluminium Company Limited for setting up a complete 132 KV switch-yard and for the purpose of execution of the agreement it was to supply materials and make constructions. In order to fulfil the said agreement, petitioner No. 1 transported to the project site various machineries and materials. The officer-in-charge of Jamsola Ghat Check-gate demanded undertakings from the petitioner No. 1 for transporting the articles. There is no provision for giving undertaking under the Orissa Sales Tax Act or the Rules made thereunder. The Commissioner is also not authorised under the statute to issue direction for giving undertaking. The officer-in-charge of the check-gate seized some articles being transported as no undertaking was furnished by th...
Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Limited and anr. Vs. State of ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC273(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. A Government company is the petitioner in this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Having registered office in Calcutta, the petitioner entered into a contract with the National Aluminium Company to erect a water treatment plant in the latter's factory site and for that purpose had a site office in NALCO Nagar at Angul. The petitioner was transporting various goods for executing the said contract which were to pass through the various check gates established by the State Government in exercise of the power under Section 16-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act').3. While the goods of the petitioner were being transported through Jamshola-ghat combined check gate, the officer-in-charge of the check gate who is also a Sales Tax Officer under the Act served a notice on 6th May, 1984, on the driver of the vehicle carrying the goods that the petitioner being a casual dealer under the Act is liable to be taxed in ...
Bairagi Charan Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT10; 1988CriLJ286
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The impugned orders were passed under Section 107, Cri. P.C. ('Code' for short). Mr. Pasayat, appearing for the petitioners strenuously urged that the learned Executive Magistrate did not comply with . the requirements of Section 111 of the Code and passed the impugned orders mechanically without application of judicial mind. Therefore, they are liable to be quashed.2. In the first case there was allegation of dispute between a group of students of the Utkal University Vani Vihar and a group of persons of village Patia nearby. In the second case the alleged dispute centered round cutting of some mango trees of the same village. The first party was Raja Krushna Chandra Deb and the members of the second party were a group of villagers.3. I have carefully gone through the impugned orders, as well as, the first information reports lodged by the Police Officers of Saheednagar Police Station. It would appear therefrom that there were specific incidents after the occ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kalipada Ghose
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT571
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. On the applications filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, this court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question for opinion of the court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of Section 249(4) of the Act, his order amounted to one within the ambit of Section 250 of the Act so as to be subjected to second appeal before the Tribunal under Section 253 of the Act '2. Accordingly, the aforesaid question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court. The gist of the relevant facts may be stated as follows:The assessee, Kalipada Ghose, was the proprietor of New Ganguram Sweets at Bhubaneswar. The assessment years involved are 1974-75 and 1975-76. The Income-tax Officer determined the total income of the asses-see at Rs. 17,500 and Rs. 30,000, respectively, f...
Bathula Krishna Rao and ors. Vs. Pininti Mahalakshmi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR575
H.L. Agrawal, C.J. and B.K. Behera, J.1. These two appeals under the Letters Patent jurisdiction of this Court, which arise out of a common judgment, were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. These appeals arise out of a claim under the Motor Vehicle Act and raise a small but interesting question as to whether the deceased, who suffered death at the end of his journey by the bus in question, would still be held to be a 'passenger' travelling in the bus.3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :On 20-8-1973 deceased P. Papayya was travelling in bus No. A.P.S. 1909 belonging to appellant No. 1 from Berhampur to Parlakhemundi. While the bus had reached near the village of the said passenger and he was getting down from the bus after it had stopped, according to the case of the claimants, namely, the widow of the deceased and her minor children, the driver of the vehicle suddenly started the bus without giving any indication. As a result, the deceased fell down from...
Chhaila Pradhan and State of Orissa Vs. Bansidhar Pradhan and Two ors. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT699; 1986(II)OLR520
B.K. Behera, J.1. Continuance or cancellation of the bail granted to the accused-opposite parties is the question for consideration in these three Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Instituted Under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') which have been heard together and will be governed by this common order. The State has moved for cancellation of the bail granted to two of the opposite parties, namely, Banshidhar hearing the learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the application made by the first-informant in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 373 of 1986, besides pressing for cancellation . of bail in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 388 of 1986 which has been instituted by the State.2. The four opposite parties, besides others, are alleged to have committed the offence of double murder by assaulting jugal Pradhan and Abhay Pradhan to death in furtherance of their common object being armed with deadly weapons on December 11, 1985. They are also...
Dayanidhi Misra Vs. Ramachandra Misra Alias Chandra Sekhar Mishra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT65; 1986(II)OLR507
Agrawal, C.J.1. This application has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single judge of this Court for an authoritative decision of the question as to whether the period during which the proceeding Under Section 18-8 (inserted by the amending Act 54 of 1975) of the Orissa Money- Lenders Act, 1939 (for short, 'the Act'),was pending before the appropriate authority should be, excluded from the period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of loan.2. The petitioner is a registered money-lender under the Act. On 11-4-1975 he had granted a loan of Ks. 800/- to the opposite party under a handnote. On 12-1-1977 he filed an application before the Subdivisional Officer, Puri, for grant of a certificate Under Section 18-B of the Act. According to the provisions of Section 18-B, the State Government may by a notification require the money-lenders carrying on business in any local area to produce before the prescribed authority all records relating to their business including doc...
Ganesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1986
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT215; 1986(II)OLR514
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted Under Section 394, IPC, and, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. Nine accused persons including :he petitioner stood their trial Under Section 395, IPC, on the allegation that they committed dacoity in the night of 18-11-1979 in the house of one Prabhudayal Agarwala of village Banabira under Sohela Police Station before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sambalpur and seven of them were acquitted of the charge Under Section 395, IPC, but the petitioner and one Dilip Kumar were convicted Under Section 395 IPC. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Dilip Kumar and altered the conviction of the petitioner to one Under Section 394, IPC, but maintained the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years.2. The prosecution alleged that oh 18-11-1979 at night there w...
Nilambar Das Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1470
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Though this revision came up for admission and I was not inclined to admit this revision, yet the learned Counsel for the petitioner insisted that a reasoned order may be passed and keeping in view the importance of the point urged, I think it appropriate to dispose of the revision by giving a reasoned order.2. The petitioner was convicted under Section 354, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna. On appeal, this Court has affirmed the conviction and recorded a finding that considering the gravity of the offence involving a young married girl, the sentence is lenient and dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 14th of August, 1986. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the Sessions Judge praying therein that in view of the order passed by this Court on 20-10-1981 while admitting the Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 1981, no warrant of arrest should be issue...
Agadhu Das Vs. Baban Parida and Ten ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT540; 1986(II)OLR493
L. Rath, J.1. This revision has been referred to the Division Bench by order of Hon'ble Mr. J. K. Mohanty J. (as he then as) on the question whether in a arrant case instituted upon a complaint, the accused persons can be discharged Under Section 245(2), Criminal Procedure Code, is after repeated opportunity the complainant fails to produce any material evidence.2. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubanes ar, against the opposite parties on which ICC No. 1 of 1977 as registered. The learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubanesar, took cognisance in the case on 19-1-1977 Under Sections 379 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and after examining the petitioner directed summons to be issued to the opposite parties for appearance. Thereafter several dates of hearing ere fixed ith direction to the petitioner to bring his itnesses but ho ever since after various adjournments the petitioner did not produce any itness, the learned Magistrate record...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »