Orissa Court July 1988 Judgments
Asit Kumar Mohanty Vs. the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cutt ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC147
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged Annexures 6-C and 6-D, orders passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (referred to as the 'Tribunal') on 19-5-1981 and 30-7-1981 respectively in a case Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (referred to as the 'Act').2. The short and undisputed facts are that opposite party No. 2, who met with an accident on 13-12-1976 with the truck bearing registration No. O.R.U. 6025 belonging to the petitioner near village Bhanpur in Cuttack-Bhubaneswar Road, instituted a claim case Under Section 110-A of the Act (registered as Misc. Case No. 16 of 1977) claiming compensation of Rs. 45,000/-. In course of the proceeding, the Tribunal framed issues by order dated 2-3-1978 and the case was posted for hearing from time to time and lastly on 9-1-1979, it was dismissed for default, because opposite party No. 2 did not take steps (Annexure 6-A). On 7-2-1979 opposite party No. 2 filed a petition Under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT191(Ori)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The short question for consideration in this writ application is whether the coal which is imported by the petitioner for generation of electricity in his captive power plant is exempted from levy of basic and additional duties of customs under the notification of the Government for 100% Export-oriented undertakings No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981, since electricity generated out of the captive power plant has to be used for the purpose of manufacture of charge-chrome to be exported out of India.2. The short facts necessary for the aforesaid determination are that the petitioner has set up a plant for manufacture of charge-chrome at Choudwar in the district of Cuttack within the State of Orissa and it has also an existing plant at Theruballi where ferro-chrome is being produced. The Government of India in the Department of Commerce issued a resolution declaring that in order to bridge the increasing deficit in the balance of trade and running down of exchange reserves...
Tag this Judgment!Utkal Jewel House Vs. Special Secretary to the Government of India, Mi ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1988
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC199
K.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the orders under annexures 5, 6 and 7 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, the Gold Control Administrator and the Special Secretary to the Government of India, the original, appellate and revisional authorities, respectively, under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').2. The facts of the case are that the officers of the Central Excise raided the premises of the petitioners on June 18, 1969, and June 30, 1969, where they carried on business in gold and jewellery and seized a huge quantity of primary gold with foreign markings, gold ornaments and documents showing, unauthorised transactions in gold and jewellery as per panchanama (annexures 1 and 2). When notices to show cause were issued to them, they submitted their explanations stating therein that the petitioners had taken on rent the ground floor of a building belonging to one K. Satyanarayana Rao who was also having business in ...
Tag this Judgment!Jashree Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Madhab Sundar Gajapati and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ori129
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Appointment of plaintiff 1 as receiver by the appellate Court reversing decision of the trial Court appointing defendant 1 as receiver is assailed in these two Civil Revisions by defendant 1.2. Both the plaintiffs and defendant 1 made applications in the trial Court for appointment of a receiver. Taking into consideration the fact that (i) in a previous proceeding under the Arbitration Act defendant 1 was appointed as receiver by the trial Court and it was continuing in possession of the disputed property and (ii) plaintiffs have been restrained in O.S. No. 1 of 1985 of the Court of District Munsiff Palasa in respect of the suit properties, trial Court appointed defendant 1 as receiver. Thus, application for appointment of receiver by the plaintiffs was dismissed and that of defendant 1 was allowed. Plaintiffs preferred two appeals. Appellate Court held that defendant 1 did not render accounts to Court while he was receiver in the arbitration proceeding and it...
Tag this Judgment!Arjuna Kumar Pujhari Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: 66(1988)CLT476; 1989CriLJ449
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. The question involved in this revision is a small but ticklish one with regard to the interpretation of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Criminal P.C. This question arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner who i is a Forest Range Officer is being tried by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpurin T.R. Case No. 6 of 1983 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e), of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period 1-7-1966 to 3-12-1976, the disproportion being to the tune of Rs. 58,751.00. The FIR was lodged on 16-1-1982, and the charge-sheet was filed before the Magistrate on 16-3-1983. The Magistrate then forwarded the case to the Special Judge for disposal in accordance with law on the same day i.e. on 16-3-1983. The learned Special Judge took cognisance and issued summons on 16-3-1983. The accused appeared before the Sp...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Nath Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT123; 1989CriLJ453
ORDERV. Gopalaswamy, J.1. This revision is preferred against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalput in Criminal appeal No. 90/64 of 1983 confirming the order of the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur, in 2(c) C.C. No. 136 of 1981 convicting the petitioner under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'E.C. Act') for having violated clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order') and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five days and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month more.2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 28-10-1980 the Inspector of Supplies (P.W. 1) inspected the shop of the accused-petitioner and found that the petitioner did not display in his shop the opening stock of peas, ground-nut seeds, lever spray, torch cells and potatoes though he w...
Tag this Judgment!B.A. Kameswar Rao Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-1988
Reported in: 66(1988)CLT575; 1989CriLJ224
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The appellant who was the cashier of the Division Office of the Forest Corporation stood charged under Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. He has been convicted on all counts and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as six months each for the offence under Sections 409 and 477A, I.P.C, and the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that in the capacity as the cashier he has misappropriated to the tune of Rs. 10,044.35 between the period 1-2-1975 to 15-4-1975. According to the prosecution case, P. W. 4 submitted the Account sheet to the Division Office for the period from 20-2-73 to 28-2-75 which shows refund of advance to the tune of Rs. 3935/- and P. W. 12, the Divisional Manager passed the said amount under Ext. 14. But the accused by i...
Tag this Judgment!Brushava Bariha Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1916
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna, convicting the appellant under Section 302,1.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for having caused the death of his wife Debaki (referred to as the 'deceased').2. The facts in short are that on 30-3-1981 the appellant and the deceased went to their land in the forest to collect mahua flowers. Their two sons P.W. 1 Bhakta and P.W. 2 Nidhi also came to the forest and were tending cattle at a little distance. At about midday P.Ws. 1 and 2 heard the distresed cries of their mother 'Marigoli Marigoli'. They turned at the direction and saw that the appellant was assulting the deceased with the blunt side of a Tangia (M.O.I). They ran to the place of assault and attempted to intervene, but the appellant threatened them and so they left the place out of fear. They came to the village and reported the incident to their uncle (P.W. 3) and their elder sister (P.W...
Tag this Judgment!Sachindranath Das Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 66(1988)CLT616; [1989]74STC93(Orissa)
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged annexure 1, a requisition for certificate by opposite party No. 1, annexure 2, a certificate of public demand under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), annexure 3, the appellate order passed by opposite party No. 4 and the review order passed by opposite party No. 1 in the certificate proceeding on 29th March, 1980.2. Facts stated in the writ petition are narrated in brief. The petitioner was a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act carrying on business of supply of machineries and equipments. He closed down his business by making an application to opposite party No. 1 on 4th September, 1972. To the best of his memory he had no sales tax dues outstanding on him. On 30th March, 1977 opposite party No. 1 submitted a requisition for certificate under the Act stating therein that a sum of Rs. 26,295.34 was outstanding against him as arrears of sales tax dues for quarters ending wit...
Tag this Judgment!Kouta Markandeyulu Vs. Republic of India and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ238
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar, allowing a petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) and permitting the prosecution to examine the authority sanctioning the prosecution.2. On the basis of the F.I.R. dated 9-8-1979 lodged by an Inspector of C. B. I. and after due investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, ex-Branch Manager, United Commercial Bank, Narasingpur, on 26-4-1980 for having committed misappropriation of cash of Rs. 7000/-. He was charged for having committed offences under Sections 5(l)(c) and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The trial commenced on 28-4-1982 and in due course 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 15 documents were proved and exhibited. Prosecution was closed on 25-9-1984, accused's statement was recorded on 21-1-1985 and a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »