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.
Bikar Singh Vs. Badri Prasad Kedia
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori48
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(q) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant seeks to assail the order dated 31-10-81 of the Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, passed in the proceeding arising from the application filed by the respondent under Order 38, Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code.2. The respondent filed Money Suit No. 10 of 1981 for recovery of Rs. 61,700/- from the appellant or in the alternative for attachment and delivery of possession of the truck bearing registration No. ORH 1044. The gist of the allegations in the plaint was that the aforementioned truck was taken on hire purchase basis by the appellant from one Rahas Behari Fakir Narayan on being financed by the respondent. One of the conditions stipulated in the agreement, an oral one, was that the appellant would get the endorsement of hiring in the name of the respondent and may terminate the agreement by paying the amount or by delivering the vehicle to him. He having done neither t...
Motwani and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR97(Orissa)
D.P. Mohhpatra, J.1. These two cases have come before this court on references by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), at the instance of the assessee. The question referred by the Tribunal for consideration by this court reads as follows : 'Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses incurred amounting to Rs. 11,250 under the head ' Lease contract paid ' was of a capital nature ?'2. The Tribunal in its order came to hold that the question whether a particular expenditure can be said to have been incurred on capital or revenue account is a mixed question of fact and law and the finding in the case, being based on interpretation of a document, a question of law arises out of the order. Accordingly, it allowed the applications filed by the assessees and made the references.3. The facts relevant for the present purpose ma...
Dandasi Sahu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Ori274
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. Facts are stated in brief. The appellantentered into a contract with the respondent for construction of Ramaguda Minor Irrigation Project within Kukudakhandi Block in Ganjam district at an estimated cost of Rs. 9,99,510/- and executed Agreement No. 4 , F-2 of 1973-74 on 4-5-1973 which contained an arbitration clause in the event of a dispute. Although the construction of the project was to be completed within 18 months from the date of execution of the agreement, yet for execution of extra and additional items of work, it came to a close on 10-8-1975. The appellant received a sum of Rs. 23,74,001/-under 13 running bills, yet he raised a dispute and filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the learned court below for appointment of an arbitrator in accordance wit...
State of Orissa Vs. Bhawani Bhandar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC196(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.2. The following question of law has been referred to by the Tribunal:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal is correct in holding that in a proceeding under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act the burden of proof that the declarations produced before the assessing officer are not true and genuine is on the State (Revenue) when such proceeding is in consequence of reopening of the completed assessment under Section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act wherein previously the declarations in question have been accepted 3. Petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act in Puri-I Circle. In course of assessment under Section 12(4) of the Act, for the year 1973-74, it claimed deduction of Rs. 4,67,606.04 from his turnover on account of sale to a registered dealer M/s. Jharendra Das. Sometime after the assessment was concluded unde...
Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC244(Orissa)
H.L. Agrawal, C.J. and S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. By this reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, has referred the following question to this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal is correct to hold that securing of the declaration in form C subsequent to the assessment is not a good ground for its acceptance by the first appellate authority? 2. The dealer had filed certain declaration form before the appellate authority as it was not available to them at the stage of the assessment, and relief was granted by the appellate authority itself. On second appeal by the department, the order of the assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer was confirmed and it was held that the first appellate authority had no right in law to accept the declaration form.3. The question does not require much discussion since it has been answered by two recent decisions of...
Rushi Mahakur Vs. Dibya Shankar Padhan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori145
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This civil revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur, affirming the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Civil P.C. ('Code' for short).2. The land in dispute in this case is 1.02 acres of land out of Khata No, 32 of village Nagaon which was attached under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code by order of the learned Subordinate Judge dt. 4-3-1974. The attachment was effected by the Process Server on 5-3-1974 as is evident from his report (Ext.-A-1). Despite the attachment, the petitioner purchased the said land from opposite party No. 2 by a registered sale deed dt. 22-3-1974 for a cash consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. The petitioner in Execution Case No. 51 of 1976 filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code for release of the disputed land.3. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both parties, I find that the case is ...
Deepak Medical Store Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC293(Orissa)
H.L. Agrawal, C.J. and S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. In this reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, has referred the following questions of law for opinion of this Court:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, is legally right to hold that the dealer is liable to pay tax with effect from 5th April, 1975, that is, the date of its application for registration ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, is legally correct to hold that the order annulling the assessment for the period 30th June, 1975 by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax is contrary to law ?2. The dealer had made a voluntary application for registration under Section 9-A of the Act on 5th April, 1975 and received the registration certificate on 11th July, 1975. In these circumstances, the Sales Tax Officer held the petitioner liabl...
Binod Kumar Agarwala and anr. Vs. Mst. Satyabhama Debi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-01-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori44
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendants are the petitioners in this civil revision against an order restoring the suit which was dismissed for default without notice to the petitioners. In spite of valid service of notice, plaintiff-opposite party has not entered appearance in this civil revision.2. The suit was for title and possession which was being contested by the defendants who filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's assertion. It was posted for hearingto 5-4-1983 on which date both the parties applied for adjournment. Both the applications were rejected and the plaintiff not being ready for hearing, the suit was dismissed for default. On 26-4-1983, the application for restoration of the suit was filed accompanied by a medical certificate. The matter was posted for hearing to 12-5-1983. That day an affidavit by the son of the plaintiff was filed in support of her absence indicating therein that the plaintiff was ill. Trial Court having restored the suit believing the groun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›