Orissa Court August 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.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Durdadshya Kumar Samal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori229
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Insurer is the appellant in this appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act'). Cross-objection has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.2. It is not in dispute that on 31-5-1980 at about 11 a.m. the truck bearing registration No. ORU 1220 caused the accident as a result of which the claimant sustained extensive injuries including fracture of right leg and ankle bones. He was removed to Kendrapara hospital where he was an indoor patient from the date of occurrence for long.3. Case of the claimant is that on account of accident he became invalid, sustained a loss of Rs. 600/- per month which he was earning. Accordingly, he made a claim for compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.The owner disputed the negligence in driving. It is his claim that the vehicle was requisitioned by the Collector for election duty and accordingly, he would not be liable to pay the compensation if at all it is awarded.The Collector, Cuttack,...
Braja Kishore Mohanty Vs. M.C. Shyamasundar and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC46; AIR1988Ori237
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Claimant is the appellant in this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act').2. Admittedly, on 23rd December, 1978, in the night at about 9 p.m. the truck bearing registration No. MEM 9020 was coming on the National Highway No. 5 towards Cuttack. Between Chandikhole Chhak and Badachana it faced with an accident and the claimant sustained injuries.3. Case of the claimant is that he was a pedestrian along with P. W. 6. The truck hit him from behind and thereafter it dashed against a culvert and was capsized. As a result of the accident, he sustained injuries and became unconscious. Ultimately, he lost his right hand on account of amputation. He claimed compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-.4. Despite notice, owner of the vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal. Accordingly, insurer was allowed to contest on merits also. It is the case of the insurer that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the truck and accordingly, under the t...
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Durdadahya Kumar Samal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC204
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Insurer is the appellant to this appeal under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (in short 'the Act'). Cross-objection has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.2. It is not in dispute that on 31-5-1980 at about 11 a.m. the truck bearing registration No ORU 1220 caused the accident as a result of which the claimant sustained extensive injuries including fracture of right leg and ankle bones. He was removed to Kendrapara hospital where he was an indoor patient from the date of occurrence for long.3. Case of the claimant is that on account of accident he became invalid sustained a loss of Rs. 600/- per month which he was earning. Accordingly, he made a claim for compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.4. The owner disputed the negligence in driving. It is his claim that the vehicle was requisitioned by the Collector for election duty and accordingly, he would not be liable to pay the compensation if at all it is awarded.5. The Collector, Cut...
State of Orissa Vs. Ramnarayan Sitaram
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-29-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC153(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 at the instance of the Revenue on the following questions of law arising out of the order :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal is legally right to hold that production of F form in support of commission sales is not mandatory ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal is justified in holding that the turnover of the dealer-opponent under the Central Sales Tax Act is not exigible to tax during the year 1974-75 if purchase tax has been paid on the very same turnover ?2. From the statement of the case, it is revealed that the assessee is a partnership firm registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act read with the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules. It carries on purchase and sale of jute in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. In the year 1974-75,...
Singal Trading Co. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-29-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC329(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (in short 'the Act') at the instance of the assessee, a partnership firm. The following question of law has been referred by the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, for a decision of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack, was correct to hold that the production of official declaration form is mandatory for claim of deduction for sales made to registered dealers under Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 ?2. As revealed from the statement of the case by the Tribunal, the assessee is a dealer registered under the Act. It claimed deduction of Rs. 2,26,781.77 as sale to other registered dealers under Section 6(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act in respect of the year 1977-78. The claim of the dealer was not accepted by the assessing officer since the relevant declarations of the purchasing dealer in statut...
Baikunthannath Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori150; 66(1988)CLT597
R.C. Patnaik, J. 1. A question of some importance relating to the functioning of democracy falls for decision in this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, filed by a Sarpanch against an order of suspension passed by the Collector under the provision of Section 115(1) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (Orissa Act 1 of 1965).2. The petitioner, the Sarpanch of Purunabandhagoda Grama Panchayat in the district of Keonjhar, was suspended from office by order of the Collector dt/- 28-6-1985 as per Anneuxre-1. On allegations --particulars being annexed that he violated, omitted or refused to carry out the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the Orders made thereunder and abused the powers, rightsand privileges vested in him and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama and his further continuance was detrimental to the interest of the Grama Panchayat and the inhabitants of the Grama. The petitioner alleged that the order of ...
Dr. Kamala Kanta Kar Vs. Orissa State Board of Homeopathic Medicine, B ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori82
L. Rath, J. 1. The challenge in this writ application is to an order passed by the Orissa State Boardof Homeopathic Medicine, Opposite Party No. 1, cancelling the registration of the petitioner as a homeopathic practitioner and removing his name from the State register of homeopathic practitioners.2. The petitioner is a registered homeopathic practitioner so registered under the provisions of the Orissa Homeopathic Act, 1956 and is presently the Principal-cum-Superintendent of Dr. Abhin Chandra Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, a Government Homeopathic Medical College. The petitioner became a listed homeopathic practitioner in 1964 and was registered on 3-5-1969. The order of removal of the name from the register is dated 12-6-1986.3. Opposite Party No. 1 is a statutory body created and functioning under the Orissa Homeopathic Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the State Act'). The law relating to homeopathic practitioner of t he State is as contained in the State Act as also in the Centr...
Pratap Kishore Misra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori273
L. Rath, J.1. The purported withdrawal of recognition of one Rebati Sanskrit Vidyalaya, a Sanskrit Tol and an aided school, has necessitated the filing of this petition for quashing of the same. The petitioner is the Secretary of the managing committee of the school. The facts, so far as relevant and undisputed, are that the school was founded in 1928 by the grandfather of the petitioner named after his mother and is affiliated to Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya. The Government in the Education Departmentcommunicated a letter of 10-6-83 to the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa, opposite party No. 2, accepting the latter's proposal for de-recognition of the school and stating that the Tol was de-recognised with effect from 1-6-1982.2. Assailing such decision of the State Government, Dr. S. C. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged the order to be without jurisdiction as being not contemplated under any statute; the principles of natural justice havin...
Annua Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: 1989CriLJ400
H.L. Agrawal, J.1. The petitioner by this writ of habeas corpus has challenged the order of his detention dt. 8-10-1986 passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack (O.P. No. 3) (vide Annexure-1) under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') on various grounds. Pursuant to the impugned order, the petitioner was arrested on 10-11-1986 and lodged in the Cuttack Circle Jail. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 20-10-1986 under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act. The grounds of the petitioner's detention along with the relative documents were served on the petitioner on 14-11-1986 vide Annexure-4.2. The petitioner also filed a representation on 28-11-1986, but the State Government confirmed the order of detention under Section 12(1) of the Act vide Annexure-5 dt. 29-12-1986 and directed that the petitioner would continue in detention for a period of 12 months. His representation was also rejected by order dt. 9-2-1987 (Annexure-6).3....
Orissa Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Others. ( ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Ori)12; [1988]171ITR222(Orissa)
S. C. MOHAPATRA J. - These three writ application by three limited companies whose profits and gains are derived from their industrial undertakings claim deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, from such profits and gains, of a percentage on the capital employed in the said industrial undertakings.As common questions are involved, the writ applications were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.Petitioner in OJC No. 1031 of 1980 got the deduction for the assessment year 1976-1977 granted by the Income-tax Officer to the extent of Rs. 7,35,114 under section 80J. However, after amendment of section 80J by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980 which had retrospective operation, the Commissioner of Income-tax issued notice under section 263 of the Income-tax Act to show cause why the order of assessment should not be modified, cancelled or set aside. Petitioner has assailed the said notice.In OJC No. 2356 of 1981 validity of the retrospective amendment of se...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »