Orissa Court April 1988 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 Co. Ltd. Vs. Chamaru Bhoi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-05-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC161
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Insurer is the appellant in this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Claimants have filed a cross-objection for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded.2. On 15-7-1981 at about mid-day in an accident caused by a truck Satyakadi, a boy aged about 16 years, who was earning his livelihood from tailoring sustained fatal injuries to succumb at the spot at the outskirts of his village Bhetra while returning home from the tailoring shop at Golobazar in Sambalpur town.3. Claiming the monthly earning of the deceased to be Rs. 350/- the parents of the deceased in their fifties claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- against the owner of the truck bearing registration number OSC 9648. Originally, it was stated that the name of the insurer was not known. By amendment dated 7-12-1982, New India Assurance Company was claimed to be the insurer. On 15-2-1984 in place of New India Assurance Company, National Insu...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanurjeya Khosla and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-05-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC323
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Insurer is the appellant under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Owner of the vehicle had entered contest and has also appeared in this appeal. There is no allegation of collusion of the claimants and the owner. Accordingly, insurer has right to challenge the award only on the grounds available under Section 96(2) of the Act.2. In this appeal there is no dispute that the deceased was moving in the truck ORU 7783 on 13-2-1982 when she full out of the truck and sustained fatal injuries to succumb in the hospital on 17-2-1982 She was a daily labourer engaged to load earth on the truck to be brought to the work-site While returning on the truck with morum with others, the truck faced with the accident Negligence in driving the vehicle and the compensation awarded is not in dispute. The only dispute is that the insurer is not liable since the deceased was not engaged by the owner and as such she was only a gratuitous p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Samantasinghar and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1988
Reported in: [1988]173ITR425(Orissa)
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. All the three cases, which raise a common question of law and, therefore, have been heard together, are being disposed of herewith. The essence of the question is as to what would be the determining factor for applying the law relating to imposition of penalty in case of concealment of income. The petitioners in all the three cases are doctors. In the first case, the year of assessment is 1973-74 and in the other two cases, in which the petitioner is the same, the years of assessment are 1971-72 and 1972-73. The question of law referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ' the Act '), in all the three cases is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the penalty at the minimum is leviable with reference to the amended law '2. Facts of S.J.C. No. 72 of 1981 :The assessee, Dr. S. Samantasinghar, besides his professional income was also deriving salary in...
Shree Hanuman Rice Mill Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1988
Reported in: [1988]70STC316(Orissa)
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following questions under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'):(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the calculation of tax in question on sale of rice in course of inter-State trade to unregistered dealer first by doubling sales tax rate on rice and holding it at 8 per cent and therefrom reducing the purchase tax paid on purchase of paddy as held by the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal is correct ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was correct in holding that production of declaration in form F is not mandatory and the assessee-dealer is permissible to adduce alternative evidence in place of production of such declaration in form F in support of its claim of tax relief ?2. Facts may be stated. The dealer carries on business of purchasing paddy inside the State and a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›