Orissa Court May 1987 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.
Rama Chandra Jena and ors. Vs. Muralidhar Onjha and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-1987
Reported in: 64(1987)CLT273; 1988CriLJ218
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of a notice issued under Section 111 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not execute a bond for Rs. 1,000/- with one surety for the like amount each to keep peace in the locality for a period of one year.2. The petitioners have moved this Court alleging that there was absolutely no material before the Magistrate to be satisfied that any breach of peace was imminent at the instance of the petitioners or that public tranquillity was to be disturbed by them and that notice issued to them shows an apparent mechanical approach without any application of mind.3. The notice issued to the petitioners has been produced before the Court and as it also appears from the records of the case called for, the notice is a cyclostyled one which may be reproduced herewith handwritten portions underlined:Whereas it appears from the petition filed by the first party dt. 17-12-86, that, the me...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. B.D. Jhunjhunwala
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori267
L. Rath, J.1. The Union of India through the Chief Commercial Superintendent (Claims), S.E. Rly. who is the defendant in the court below is in appeal against the decree passed against it in a suit claiming compensation on account of loss of 21,760 liters of furnace oil.2. The plaintiff-respondent brought the suit on the pleadings that he had purchased the amount of furnace oil from the Indian Oil Corporation, Visakhapatnam wherefrom it was despatched to the Barang railway station. The consignment having never reachedBarang, he sustained the loss for which he claimed the compensation. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had issued notice to the Railways under Section 78-B read with Section 140 of the Railways Act as also under Section 80, Civil, P.C. which were received by the defendant on 10-10-1972, but however since there was jno redressal of his grievance, he was compelled to file the suit.3. The suit was contested by the appellant denying all the plaint averments and contending ...
Municipal Council Vs. Bhabagrahi Singh and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-13-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori281
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for title and possession and damages . in respect of 239 decimals out of plot No. 74 consisting of an area of 330 decimals. The land is situated in revenue village Sanjobra within Cuttack town and is in Khata No. 92 of the current settlement of the year 1931.2. Case of the plaintiff is that in 1968 it came to its notice that defendant 1 has constructed a building over the suit plot in which plaintiff was depositing materials for maintenance of the road when needed Before any action was taken, defendant 1 issued a notice not to disturb in his possession.Case of the defendant 1 is that the land is recorded as waste land which was in actual possession of the intermediary of Touzi No. 2500. The intermediary was permitting persons to use it as timber yard since 1927. In the year 1940 the intermediaries permitted him to use it as timber yard on receipt of premium. In 1950 defendant 1 took it on temporary lease by a registered docum...
Kalinga Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Ori)117; [1988]169ITR374(Orissa); [1988]69STC271(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assesses under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The following question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 2,22,161 towards the sales tax liability for the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. The assessee is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of steel tubes. In respect of tubes, for the year 1962-63, it was liable to pay sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1947. Under the scheme of the sales tax law, a dealer is liable to pay the tax on the turnover of thesale. The rate of tax depends on the nature of sale. A dealer is liable to file the return and along with the return pay the tax admitted to be the liability. If the returned...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ashok Kumar Rasiklal and Co. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Ori264
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, Union of India representing the South Eastern Railway, against the decree of the trial court for a sum of Rs. 79,556.40 passed as damages for nondelivery of certain Mohua flower consignments, raising some interesting questions of law.2. The facts :The plaintiff despatched nine consignments of Mohua flower from Khariar Road Railway iStation to Seoni under nine separate railway receipts in the month of May, 1970. Each consignment was loaded in one full wagon-load consisting of 321 bags, each weighing 224.70 quintals. The consignments were booked to 'self and, according to the plaintiffs case, they were despatched under sale orders to M/s. Jaiswal Trading Corporation, Seoni, subsequently added as defendant No. 2, @Rs. 8,839.60 p. per wagon. The relative documents including the railway receipts were accordingly sent through the Bank for collection of the money from the concerned party. The defendant-Railway Administration, however, d...
Orient Paper Mills Sramik Congress Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-08-1987
Reported in: (1988)IILLJ75Ori
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The workmen through their Union have challenged the legality of the orders of reference passed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (i) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for three different years in these three writ petitions and since common questions of fact and law are involved, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. O.J.C. No. 1596 of 1983 is in respect of the accounting year 1981-82, O.J.C. No. 1483 of 1984 is in respect of accounting year 1982-83 and O.J.C. No. 1956 of 1985 is in respect of accounting year 1983-84.2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of settlements between the Management and the workmen, the workmen were getting annual bonus at the rate of 20% of the basic, dearness allowance and additional wages earned by the workmen during the respective fin...
Golak Behari Biswal and anr. Vs. Karunakar Rout
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Ori236
L. Rath, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants-appellants challenging the decree in a suit by the plaintiff-respondent, for declaration that the compromise decree in T.S. No. 8/68 in the Court of the Munsif, Athagarh, does not affect his 8 annas interest in the suit property and that his interest is not affected by the registered sale deed dated 3-4-74 executed by defendant No. 3 (appellant No. 3) in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants 1 and 2) as also for declaration that he is entitled to exercise his right of pre-emption in respect of the share of appellant No. 3 in the suit property, that appellants Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to separate possession of specified portion of the suit property, and seeking their prohibition from entering upon such separate possession until the property is partitioned.2. The plaintiff-respondent pleaded that appellant No. 3 is his adoptive mother and the appellants 1 and 2 are her sister's sons. The suit property is an area of 3.69 acre...
BipIn Behari Nayak Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-1987
Reported in: 64(1987)CLT462
B.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioner assails the order of conviction recorded against him under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the Act'), sentencing him to pay a fine of Re. 0.25 paise for each day of default and in default of payment thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days for non-compliance with the provision made in Section 159 of the Act, in that the annual general meeting of the company of which the petitioner was said to be one of the directors should have been held on or before June 30, 1980, and the annual return was required to be submitted by August 29, 1980, but the petitioner had failed to comply with the said requirement. The case of the petitioner was that he was not one of the directors of the company and he had nothing to do with the filing of the return. The trial court has accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the petitioner as indicated above.2. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for th...
Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. C. Malthy and ors. and Susan Varghese and ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC135; 64(1987)CLT153
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two applications filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the legal representatives of K.A. Kutty and P. Verghese who died in an accident on 13-3-1975. The applications were heard analogously and were disposed of by a common judgment. As common questions are involved, these appeals were also heard analogously and are being disposed of by a judgment.2. K.A. Kutty was an employee of Messrs Hackett Engineering Company. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 863/- besides bonus and other benefits. Verghese was working as a Construction Assistant in the Rourkela Steel Plant of Hindustan Steel (now Steel Authority of India). On the tragic day, Kutty picked up his friend Verghese as a pillion rider and was proceeding on the ring road in front of S.K.D A.V. Polytechnic for woman towards Sector No. 13. From the opposite direction a bus bearing registration number ORO 3223 belonging to the Steel Plant driven by respondent No. 3 approached t...
Madhabananda Ray and anr. Vs. Spencer and Company Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori35; 64(1987)CLT560
P.C. Misra, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 86 of 1977-III of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, are the petitioners in this revision. The present. opposite party filed the aforesaid suit for realisation of Rs. 20,885.70 paise from the defendants towards the value of the consignment and interest thereof on the allegation that the goods in those consignment were misappropriated by them. The present petitioners filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations and alleging that the goods were delivered to M/s. Panda Medical Hall, Jajpur as per the telephonic instructions of the plaintiff. It was further alleged in the written statement that as per condition No. 17 embodied in the consignment note all the disputes relating to the consignment were subject to the jurisdiction of the Court at Cuttack and, therefore, the Court at Bhubaneswar had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Issues were framed by the trial Court, one of which was 'Has this Court jurisdict...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›