Orissa Court July 1990 Judgments
Gouranga Sahu and ors. Vs. Maguni Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori151
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant against the judgment and decree passed in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property which consists of two plots, namely plot No. 1018 in Khata No. 597 of mauza Choudwar measuring Ac. 0.07 decimals and plot No. 759 in Khata No. 236 covering an area of 5 kadis out of Ac. 0.01 decimals from the south with houses standing thereon.2. Plaintiff is the purchaser of the suit lands under a registered sale deed (Ext. 9) dated 3-7-1970 from defendant No. 3. Plaintiffs case is that one Chintamoni was the common ancestor and the recorded owner of the property who died prior to 1930. His son Murali died unmarried in 1940. Kamala, the widow of Chintamoni got the propery on death of Murali and Kamala had a daughter called Maguni who is defendant No. 1. Maguni's daughter Sarala is defendant No. 3 and Mahendra is the husband of Sarala. Maguni's son Paramananda has a son Naba-kishore who is defendant No. 2. It is the furt...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Enterprisers Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC84(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Rameswar Das Bajaj was a dealer registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to carry on business of sale and purchase of goods in the trade name of Commercial Enterprisers. In the month of December, 1973, Rameswar Das died leaving behind Sankarlal, his son to continue the business. In respect of the years 1971-72, the Sales Tax Officer initiated a proceeding under Section 12(8) of the Act. In respect of the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, regular assessments were made under Section 12(4) of the Act As required under Section 12(2)(a) of the Act, notices were required to be served on the dealer. By the time the notices were issued, Rameswar Das had already expired in December, 1973. The Tribunal set aside the orders of assessment and directed the Sales Tax Officer to assess afresh. Grievance of Sankarlal is that assessment proceeding ought to have been annulled. Since the Tribunal refused to state a case, this Court called upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Balai Krushna Tej Vs. Inspector of Schools and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT402; 1991CriLJ206
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. This Court is being required to spend quite a bit of its time in deciding whether contempt has been committed by public officials or not. Devotion of this time is towards non-productive work, but the same is necessary inasmuch as if the fruits obtained after devoting much time, money and energy are not allowed to be reaped by the successful parties, their approach to this Court to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the erring officials is well justified. Most of the cases coming to this Court on the aforesaid count relate to non-implementation of the order within the time fixed by the court. As there have been a large number of allegations on this count and as the Court is being required to spend its valuable time to adjudicate such types of grievances and as it would be in the larger interest of justice if this work is avoided, time has come to say something on the implementation of the order by public officials within the time-frame fixed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Harekrushna Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ462
L. Rath, J. 1. The appellant having been convicted under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) and under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also under Section 471, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 9,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo R.I. for one year on each count under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 471, I.P.C., and although convicted also under Sections 403/468, I.P.C. though no separate sentence has been awarded under the two sections, has preferred this appeal.2. The indictment of the petitioner was that he while working as an L. D. Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer (R & B), Dhenkanal Division, Dhenkanal forged letters of authority in the name of the Executive Engineer during the period from May, 1973 to March, 1974 and took delivery of stationery a...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Minerals and Metals and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC357(Orissa)
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calls in question the validity and constitutionality of Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, as amended by Section 2(c) of the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1978, of Rule 27(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 and form XXXIV appended to the said rule. The petitioners have also prayed to quash the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack III Circle, as per annexure 1.2. The facts relevant for proper appreciation of the case of the parties may be stated thus :The petitioner No.1, Industrial Minerals and Metals, is a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the OST Act') and also a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Act'). The firm carries on business in ferro-chrome, ferro-silicon, ferro-manganese, etc. For its business the firm purchases and sells goods inside the ...
Tag this Judgment!Nidra Bewa Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bolangir and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori106
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bolangir under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') having rejected the application to refer her claim for compensation for adjudication by Civil Court, the petitioner Smt. Nidra Bewa, wife pf Dhobei Chandra Chhanda filed this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the order of rejection.As stated in the revision petition, A.20.95 decimals of land from Khata No. 1 in village Totamunda was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of 'Harihara Jora'. The said land belonged to one Bisol Chand, who left two sons, Rama and Dhobei. The petitioner Nidra Bewa is the widow of Dhobei and the opposite party No. 4 Gobardhan Chhand is her adopted son. Opposite parties 2 and 3 Maheshwar Chhand and Sachidanananda Chhand are sons of Brahmananda, son of Rama. After the death of Dhobei in 1950, the petitioner and the opposite party No. 4 have been in po...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Benugopal Choudhury
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)88CTR(Ori)144; [1991]187ITR614(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an application by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Despite valid service of notice, the assessee has not entered appearance.2. The assessee is the Project Engineer (Mech.) of Orissa Construction Corporation Ltd, He purchased some National Savings Certificates for the assessment year 1985-86 and claimed deduction of the same under Section 80C(2)(d) of the Act. During the assessment proceeding, he explained that, out of funds available by encashing fixed deposits and gifts to his son, he purchased the certificates. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for deduction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction in respect of the certificates purchased from his funds only and not from gifts to his children and allowed it. The appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal being unsuccessful, an application under Section 256(1) of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Onkarmal Nanakram (No. 1)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)88CTR(Ori)147; [1993]200ITR193(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. A statement was called for under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the following question :'Whether the Tribunal erred in law in its direction that interest paid to the partner in his individual capacity was allowable in hisindividual capacity when the partner represented the Hindu undivided family in the firm ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm having Hindu undivided families as its partners. In the assessment year 1977-78, the firm took a loan from members of the Hindu undivided families which are partners of the assessee firm. In respect of the amounts borrowed from these individuals which did not belong to the Hindu undivided families, interest was paid by the partnership firm to those individuals. The Income-tax Officer, relying upon Section 40(b) of the Act, held that, in view of the legislative mandate, interest paid to these individuals is not liable to be deducted.3. Section 40(b) reads as follows :'...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.V. Rama Rao
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR208(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. In an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a statement of case has been made by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on being called for on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in giving the direction that the amount of interest received by the assessee on the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act should be taxed in the assessment years in which that was deemed to have been earned or accrued ?'2. Despite valid service of notice, the assessee has not entered appearance. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It pays income-tax on cash basis. In the year 1962, land belonging to the assessee was compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, possession of which was taken on May 20, 1962. Compensation with interest was offered on July 31, 1963. Receiving the amount under protest, the assessee claimed h...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa Stores Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: [1990]79STC359(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Statement of the case was called for under Section 24(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter for fresh assessment instead of annulling the entire assessment ?'2. The dealer has been assessed under Section 12(4) of the Act in respect of the year 1972-73 and the quarter ending June, 1973. Notice was not served on the dealer personally. The Tribunal found that such notice was served on one Maheswar Dolai who is not connected with the business in any manner. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Sales Tax Officer for assessing the dealer in accordance with law after giving notice to him. Making grievance of the same, the dealer filed application that period of limitation for completing assessment having expired, there was no scope for remand of the case and the assessment should have been annulled.3. Section 12(7), sec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »