Orissa Court March 1988 Judgments
State Vs. Gadadhar Baral
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-1988
Reported in: 65(1988)CLT664; 1989CriLJ627
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Notice was issued to opposite party to show cause why the bail granted to' him shall not be cancelled. Pursuant to the notice, the opposite party has entered appearance.2. Opposite party along with others has been implicated in the offences under Sections 307/326, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 24-8-1987 at about 7 a. m. the injured Chandra Sekhar Baral was going to attend the call of nature when the accused persons being armed with deadly weapons like farsa, sword and knife suddenly came out from the bush and attacked him with intention to cause his death. As a result of such attack, the left hand was to be amputed from the wrist and also there was fracture of his left leg. Besides, several incised wounds were caused on the body.3. Accused persons moved for bail which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. This Court was moved and by order dated 4-12-1987 bail application so far as the opposite party was concerned was rejected by L. Rath, J. Opposite p...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Babuli Pradhan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC85
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal by the insurer under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The substantial question of law involved in this case is whether the compensation has been awarded fixing the liability on the insurer after observing the principles of natural justice.3. In view of this short question, the facts on the basis of which compensation has been awarded need not be enumerated.4. There is no dispute that the Commissioner under the Act is to dispose of the claims judicially. It is a Tribunal being a creature of the Act. Since the order is appealable, not only that the same is to be a reasoned one but also the stages of the proceeding shall be recorded separately in order-sheet. Fairness of such authority and observance of the principle of natural justice can be inferred on perusal of the same. In case the materials on record would justify such observance, non-mention of the proceeding in the order-sheet in a p...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Nayak and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-22-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ456
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Heard Mr. Pattanayak, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. P. Sahu, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing in this case.2. Relying on a decision reported in (1987) 1 Orissa LR 119 : 1987 Cri LJ 2022 K. Achuta Rao v. State of Orissa, it is submitted that non-supply of police papers under Section 173, Cr. P.C. amounts to harassment to the accused persons. In case the non-supply of police papers is deliberate or on account of negligent act the same may amount to harassment, but mere non-supply will not amount to harassment There cannot be any universal rule that the non-supply by itself will amount to harassment to the accused persons. The reported decision is accordingly, distinguishable.3. Mr. Pattanayak submitted that the criminal proceeding is continuing for about three years and the accused persons are made to appear on each day to which the case is posted fruitlessly at the pain of arrest for non-appearance. In case the police papers are not ...
Tag this Judgment!Dambaradhar Nayak Vs. Purna Chandra SwaIn and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-22-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC351
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Claimant is the appellant in this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939 (for short 'the Act') being aggrieved by refusal of his claim for compensation of Rs 25,000/- by awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with 6% interest only.2. Case of the claimant is that on 19-8-1984 at about 10.30 a.m. while he was waiting for a bus to come to Cuttack at Raghunathpur On Cuttack-Paradeep road, a car bearing registration number OAC 3793 came from Paradeep side being driven rashly and negligently and swerving towards the extreme left dashed against him as a result of which he fell down sustaining a crack fracture of the uoper end of the femur of the right side. He was admitted to the Raghunathpur Primary Health Centre wherefrom he was brought to the S.G. B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack to be under treatment as an indoor patient with effect from 20-8-84 to 2-9-84. Appellant aged about 39 years old at the time of the accident claimed to have lost a monthly incom...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Chandra Patra and ors. Vs. Pinakee Enterprisers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: 66(1988)CLT189; 1989CriLJ527
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this petition under Section 482. Criminal Procedure Code (for short the 'Code'), the petitioners Officers of the Orissa State Financial Corporation (for short the 'Corporation'), seek to quash the proceeding in the Criminal Case. ICC No. 246 of 1484 pending before the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Cuttack. In the said case the petitioners have been charged under Section 167/34 Indian Penal Code.2. The proceeding was initiated on the complaint filed by the opposite party, a private Limited Company represented by its Chairman, Narsingh Prasad Chaudhury, alleging, interalia, that in response to the call of the State Government to provide financial assistance for small and medium scale industries, the Managing Director of the Company, then as unemployed graduate, was tempted to avail of the opportunity and wanted to start an industry for cold storage of potato at village Urali near Cuttack city. He approached the Corporation, the premier financing agency in the State...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K. Narayan Rao
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: [1988]173ITR372(Orissa)
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. In all these five cases for five different assessment years, the Tribunal was directed to state a case and make a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act '), on the following question of law framed by this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 18(1)(c) in view of the change of law brought about by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 '2. Penalty proceedings were started for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73 by the Wealth-tax Officer under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act and the matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 18(3) who, in his turn, imposed penalties to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000 for each of the five assessment years.3. In the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the assessee, inter alia, t...
Tag this Judgment!Sivvam Sesha Chalapati Rao Vs. Republic of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-14-1988
Reported in: 65(1988)CLT573; 1989CriLJ457
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner Siwam Sesha Chalapati Rao, assails the Judgements of the Courts below holding him guilty of the charges under Sections 420/511 and 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, arid sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year under Sections 420/511, I.P.C. and a further period of two years' R.I. on each count under Sections 467 and 471, I.P.C., all the sentence to run concurrently.2. The case was initiated on the report submitted by the Asst. Controller of Accounts, Shri L.K. Das (P.W. 14) stating therein, inter alia, that on 30th of March, 1974 at about 10.30 A.M. the accused who was the Head Asst. of the Designs Department of the Rourkala Steel Plant approached him in his Office saying that he had brought the Bill of Belaji Printing Press and requested him for immediate payment, but the informant directed him to present the Bill to the Office. The Office Assistant after receiving the Bill...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Bar and Restaurant and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: [1988]70STC347(Orissa)
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In all these writ petitions common questions of law and fact arise, and so they are disposed of by this judgment.2. Petitioner, Delhi Bar & Restaurant sells food, eatables, ice-creams, chocolates, fruit juices and other beverages. It was assessed to sales tax under Section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. Similarly, petitioner, M/s. Standard Restaurant selling food, eatables and beverages, was assessed to sales tax under Section 12(4) of the Act for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82. According to the assessing officer, the petitioners were liable to pay sales tax on the sale of food and drinks in view of the decision in [1980] 45 STC 212 (SC) [Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi}.3. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, urged that in view of the Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, 1982, turnover of sale of food and beverages was not exigible to sales t...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Patnaik Vs. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ori9; 66(1988)CLT26
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is a petition by the plaintiff under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Civil P.C. ('Code' for short). 2. It is stated in the petition that according to the plaint case, defendant 2 is an employee under defendant 1. Both defendants 1 and 2 are joint tort feasors for having published a nd printed the defamatory article in the Illustrated Weekly of India giving rise to the suit for damages. In order to determine the question of the extent of liability of defendant 1 and the authority given by it to defendant 2 as the Editor, Publisher and Printer of the Magazine so as to bind and make him liable for torts, it is necessary that defendant 1 should produce letter(s), document(s) and record(s) relating to engagement/employment/appointment of defendant 2 along with the terms and conditions thereof required for just decision of this suit. 3. In the counter, it is stated by defendants 1, 2 and 3 that in their pleadings they have specifically stated that defendant 2 is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Janaki Ballav Patnaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ori145
ORDERK.P. Mohaptra, J.1. This is a petition by defendants 1 to 3 for exemption of compliance with the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1 of the Civil P.C. ('Code' for short). It is stated in the petition that they came to know that their witnesses in the suit were threatened by the plaintiff and/or his representatives/supporters in order to gain them over. They are also being tempted with money so as to desist from giving evidence in the suit against the plaintiff and in support of defendants 1 to 3. The lives of the witnesses on account of threats are indanger. Therefore, in the interest of justice.their names should not be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1of the Code. They have undertaken toproduce the witnesses in time whenever the yare called upon to be examined. 2. The plaintiff in a counter has stoutly denied the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that none of the witnesses of defendants 1 to 3 has been threatened by himor his representatives...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »