Orissa Court July 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.
Edel Cast India Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-21-1987
Reported in: [1988]71STC253(Orissa)
L. Rath, J.1. The petitioner having been assessed both under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Orissa Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1978-79, in respect of the same transaction of sale, has approached this Court in these two writ petitions for quashing of the same. O.J.C. No. 12 of 1980 relates to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act and O. J. C. No. 13 of 1980 relates to the assessment under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The facts, which are not disputed, and appear from the assessment order under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, are that the petitioner is in the trade of securing orders from outside the State, mostly from cement factories, and only from two others, M/s. Hindusthan Zinc Ltd. and M/s. Hindusthan Copper Ltd., for sale of a very hard metal commercially known as cylpebs. The petitioner purchases the articles from M/s. Siva Metal Industries by furnishing declarations in form XXXIV. Thereafter, as appears from the order of assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, t...
Basanta Kumar SwaIn Vs. Baidya Kumar Parida and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Ori118
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant is the petitioner in this civil revision against an order directing appointment of a survey knowing civil court commissioner to have local investigation of the disputed property to find out whether the disputed property is within the plaintiffs' plot or the defendant's plot.2. There can be no doubt that Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C., empowers a Court to depute a civil court commissioner for local investigation in a suit if he deems it requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. See (1987) 63 Cut LT 630 : (AIR 1988 Orissa 52) (Chaitan Das v. Smt. Purnabasi Pattnayak). Wide discretion is vested in the Court for the purpose as is clear from the plain language of the rule. Wider the power, greater should be the restraint. Therefore, the discretion is to be exercised judicially. Once it is a discretion of the Court, the facts and circumstances of the case should be carefully considered to examine if it is a just occasion for exerc...
Smt. Kamala Dewa Vs. Sasadhar Behera and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC241; AIR1987Ori257; 65(1988)CLT226
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant. The appellant filed an application claiming compensation on account of the death of her husband Ratnakar Behera and it was alleged in the application that the death occurred on account of the accident caused by Bus No. ORD 3521 at 10 a.m. at Cuttack-Sambalpur National Highway. In the prescribed form provided for under the relevant Rules as against Column 18, the appellant gave her name and address and as against column 22 which provides for the names of other legal representatives of the injured and their relationship, no mention was made, but in Column 23, where any other information that may be necessary or helpful for disposal of the claim is to be given, it is mentioned 'separate sheet attached' and in that sheet it has been clearly stated that the deceased had four sons and two daughters. Rest of th...
Ganesh Padhan Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ500
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh convicting him under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.2. On the informant (P.W. 1) lodging F.I.R. (Ext 1) charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for having committed offences under Sections 294 and 341, I.P.C. The substance of the allegations is that on 24-10-1978 at about 9 p.m. when the informant (P.W. 1) was returning to his house by the village lane, the petitioner appeared at the scene, abused P.W. 1 in obscene language restrained him from proceeding further and gave a push whereby, the petitioner fell down on the ground. The defence plea was denial of the occurrence.3. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 294 and 341, I.P.C. on 29-12-1978 and explained the part...
Ullas Sahu and Etc. Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-13-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ32
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. All the three writ applications which are in the nature of Habeas Corpus arise out of the same incident leading to the passing of the impugned orders of detention (Annexure-1 to each of the writ applications) by the District Magistrate, Cuttack, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act').2. All the three petitioners were arrested on 19-3-1987 and a copy of the grounds of detention dt. 22-3-1987 (Annexure-2) was served on each of them on 22-3-1987 itself in the Cuttack Jail.3. It is alleged in the grounds of detention (Annexure-2) that on 22-1-1987 at about 8.30 A.M. while one Sudhakar Behera was taking tea at the tea-stall of one Madhusudan Behera, the three petitioners along with a few others armed with various deadly weapons like sword, Bhujali, Bombs, etc. appeared there. Petitioner Bichi alias Prakash is said to be holding two bombs in his hand. Petitioner Nali alias Nilambar was holding a sword and a Bhujali and petitioner Ulla...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rekhei Sahu and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas317(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal by the insurer under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act').2. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle appeared and contested. Accordingly, the permissible zone under which the insurer could contest would be as provided under Section 96(2) of the Act.3. Mr. A. K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, placed all the materials to convince me that the award given by the Tribunal is not in accordance with judicial norms and while determining the negligence or determining the just compensation, the principles laid down have not been followed.4. I am afraid that in the appeal of the insurer, I cannot go into such question specially when the owner had contested before the Tribunal. In case the insurer had filed an application before the Tribunal stating that there was collusion between the owner and the claimant and the same had been rejected by the Tribunal in appeal by the insurer, I would have conside...
The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rekhei Sahu and o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC268
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal by the insurer under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act').2. Before the Tribunal the owner of the vehicle appeared and contested. Accordingly, the permissible zone under which the insurer could contest would be as provided under Section 96(2) of the Act.3. Mr. A.K. Mohanty, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant placed all the materials to convince me that the award given by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the judicial norms and while determining the negligence or determining the just compensation the principles laid down have not been (?)4. I am afraid, in the appeal of the insurer I cannot go into such question specially when the owner had contested before the Tribunal. In case the insurer would have filed an application before the Tribunal that there was collusion between the owner and the claimant and the same would have been rejected by the Tribunal, in appeal by the insurer I would have consider...
Khalli Dalai Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori218
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. In this Civil Revision the order of the trial court directing the plaintiff to pay court-fee under Section 7(v)(d) of the Court-fees Act is assailed.2. Plaintiffs case in the suit for recovery of possession of immovable property and damages is that he is the owner of land in plot No. 176 measuring 1 acre 312 decimals. Out of it, he let out 930 decimals to defendant 2 as per the terms mentioned in the lease deed. He continued to pay the rent till 1976. Thereafter, he violated the terms of the lease and sublet portions to others who made permanent construction on the land. This gave rise to the suit for recovery of possession and damages.3. There is no dispute that ad valorem court-fee is payable on the claims for damages. The short question for consideration is whether court-fee in respect of the recovery of possession is payable under Section 7(v)(d) of the Court-fees Act as directed by the trial court.4. Section 7(v)(d) of the Act deals with a broad category...
Purna Chandra Barik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-09-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ731
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The appellant has challenged the order of his conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C' for short) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal.2. Facts in brief may be stated. The appellant, Arjuna (P.W. 2), Bhima (P.W. 4), Sanatan (P.W. 11) and their father Dhaneswar (referred to as deceased) are neighbours and their house and Baris in village Dukhama adjoin with a common fence. On 27-4-1981 in the afternoon there was misunderstanding between the appellant and Bhima (P.W. 4) with regard to the whereabouts of the latter's maternal uncle which turned into a serious quarrel and mutual pelting of stones between the appellant and his wife Kamala (accused since acquitted) on one side and Arjuna (P.W. 2), Bhima (P.W. 4) and Sanatan (P.W. 11) on the other who were standing in their respective Baris. As a result, some of them received injuries. It is stated that the appellant became very much enraged, went inside the house, returned wi...
State of Orissa Vs. Capital Watch and Radio Emporium
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-08-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC107(Orissa)
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. By this reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, has forwarded a statement of case and referred the following question for giving an interpretation to the expression 'cost' appearing in serial No. 90 of the notification dated 23rd April, 1976 :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal was correct in holding that the expression 'cost' appearing in serial No. 90 of Notification No. 20215 dated 23rd April, 1976 as further amended by Notification No. S.R.O. 972/76 dated 24th September, 1976 refers to the purchase cost and not the selling cost of a radio ?2. The opposite party is a registered dealer under the Act and deals in radio, microphone, etc. For the period 1976-77 the dealer was assessed to tax under Section 12(4). It was found to have sold 82 Nos. of Murphy radio, the sale price of which was more than Rs. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »