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.
Sukchand Harijan and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1579
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners, nine in numbers, have been convicted under Section 379, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and the conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput, in appeal.2. It is the case of the complainant (opposite party No. 2) that the land in question was given delivery of possession to him pursuant to an order under the provisions of Regn. 2 of 1956, the order being dt. 23-2-1980. Pursuant to the said order, the date of alleged possession is 8-5-1980 and subsequent to the same while the complainant was in possession of the land and had grown the paddy crop in question, the accused persons forcibly entered into the land and cut away the paddy crop that was standing on the land on 16-10-1980 at 9 A.M.3. The defence plea of petitioners 1,2,3, 4, 5 and 9 is that they were in possession of the land notwithstanding the so-called order under Regn. 2 of 1956 and notwithstanding the so-...
Lavji Jivraj and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: [1988]70STC8(Orissa)
H.L. Agrawal, C.J. and S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a batch of five writ applications which have been taken up together for convenience with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, as they involve the same facts and point of law. They are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in all these writ applications have been engaged in timber business and in course thereof took forest coupes either in the name of any partner or in the name of the partnership firm. They filed the present writ applications challenging the validity, legality and applicability of explanation II of Section 2(c) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act as amended and validated by the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1979, denying exigibility of sales tax on all the transactions and business carried on by them.3. During the pendency of all these writ applications in this Court, a similar matter was carried to the Supreme Court and the decision of the Supreme Court has been reported in [1...
Shree Ram Dadka Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC56(Orissa)
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, has stated a case under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and referred the following two questions to this Court :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was justified to hold that the transaction in question relates to the applicant-firm and consequently there is suppression of purchase account ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, is justified in enhancing the gross turnover and taxable turnover returned resulting in extra demand of tax Answer to the second question would depend upon the answer of the first question.2. Let us examine the first question. Apparently, the question appears to be a question of fact. But it was submitted that there was no positive material to prove the disputed transaction relating to the applica...
Sukadev Singh and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori130
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. In these writ applications under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners assail the action of the State Government and its officials refusing to grant T.T. Permit for export of fire-wood and Charcoal from the State to places outside it.2. The petitioners carry on business in Charcoal and fire-wood. They purchase the same either from State agencies or private parties and sell the same either inside the State or transport the same for sale outside. Their applications for grant of Timber Transit Permit for transport of Char coal or fire-wood, as the case may be, outside the State were either rejected vide Annexure-3 dt. 31-8-86 in OJ.C. No. 2515/85 or not processed as in the other two writ applications on the ground that a ban had been imposed on the export of Charcoal and fire-wood to places outside. Such actions of the State Government and its officials despite the decision of this Court in OJ.C. No. 1078/81 (S. K. Shariff v. State of Orissa) decided on...
C.i. Foods Limited Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC284(Orissa)
H.L. Agrawal, C.J. and S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. All these five cases, which have been heard together, are on reference by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The Tribunal has referred the following question for opinion of this Court in all the cases:Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in coming to the conclusion that prawn is a category of fish and, therefore, taxable under Section 3-B of the Orissa Sales Tax ActThe dealer is the same in all the cases. The periods, however, are five assessment years beginning from 1970-71 to 1975-76.2. The question need not detain us in the least as the same has already been answered by a Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Cifoods Limited [1982] 50 STC 152.3. It is, however, submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that in the reported decision, the finding of the Tribunal was just to the contrary, namely, that prawn and fish are two...
Bhagabat Prasad Mohanty Vs. Kalanji Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-1987
Reported in: 1989CriLJ410
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Bhadrak, refusing to frame charge against the opposite parties for an offence under Section 506, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short).2. The case has a chequered career. For appreciation of the points canvassed, it is necessary to state a few facts. The petitioner filed a petition of complaint against the opposite parties on 9-3-1978 (I.C.C. Case No. 88 of 1978) alleging offences under Sections 144, 447, 426 and 506, Part II, I.P.C. After recording the statement of prosecution witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the opposite parties for offences under Sections 144 and 506, Part-I, I.P.C. and refused to frame charges for offences under Sections 145, 447, 426 and 506 Part- II, I.P.C.. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore which was dismissed as not mainta...
Naugapu Chinsya and anr. Vs. Bhagaban Sahoo and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC362
L. Rath, J.1. This appeal arises out of an award by the Third Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Puri in respect of an accident in which the deceased was a lady of thirtyfive years of whom appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are respectively the husband and the son. The deceased was a vegetable seller. The vehicle causing the accident was a tractor with a trailer. The accident occurred while the deceased was selling vegetables at a place called 'Musi Sahu Chhak, Puri (at Station Bazar, Puri). The appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 91,000/- as compensation with the break-up of Rs. 75,000/- for loss of dependency, Rs. 5.000/- for the loss of happy family life, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of company and personal love, wife's services and care towards son and Rs. 1,000/- towards funeral expenses. The learned Tribunal while finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, awarded a compensation of 12,096/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application, i....
Prafulla Chandra Choudhury @ Prafulla Kumar Choudhury Vs. Pravakar Sah ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC561
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner of the vehicle being the appellant, and the challenge is only with respect to the direction of the Tribunal directing the owner to pay the assessed amount of compensation and exonerating the insurance company from the liability. Since the claimant has not filed any appeal against the quantum of compensation, we are not concerned with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the vehicle had been taken on hire and the claimant was travelling in that vehicle when the accident took place and as a result of which the claimant suffered the injuries, the insurance company would not be liable to pay the compensation. The learned Counsel for the appellant in assailing the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal contends that the Tribunal did not bear in mind the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in the facts and circumstances...
Ghantasala Raghunath Rao Vs. Ghantasala Savitri
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Ori101
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. The miscellaneous case was listed for orders on the question of condonation of delay in filing the civil revision. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both the matters were finally heard, as I directed both the learned counsel to come ready for final disposal in my order dated 14-7-1987.2. Defendant is the petitioner in this civil revision which has been filed long after the period of limitation. After the appearance of the opposite party, while proposing to finallydispose of the matter the lower court records were called for.3. The suit is in respect of a house in Berhampur town which is claimed to be in possession of the plaintiff. She has made a simple prayer for prohibitory injunction against defendant and has also valued the suit accordingly. However, explaining her possession in the plaint, she asserted title to the land and the house claiming that she purchased the land from her earning in the name of her father. She claime...
P. Maharajan Alias Nadarajan Vs. Chakalayil Kunju Sarojini
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori175
L. Rath, J. 1. This is an appeal by the husband against the decree granting judicial separation to the respondent wife as also custody of the minor son to her with further direction that the appellant is to return back some movables including ornaments as per list to the respondent. During the hearing, Mr. Satapathy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, did not press the appeal regarding the order of judicial separation or custody of the child and has confined his submissions only to the direction for return of the movables. 2. The respondent in her petition, furnished a list of movables claimed by her, in para. 14(iii) as being gold ornaments consisting of gold bangles, gold necklaces, earwears, gold rings, gold necklace containing Mangalsutra presented by the appellant, one gold chain presented to the minor son by the respondent's brother, besides one Phillips Radio purchased by the respondent. Apart from such articles, some other articles not specified were also claimed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »