Orissa Court August 1990 Judgments
Sri Inja Venkatrao Vs. Smt. Sundara Barik and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC461; 1991ACJ581; AIR1991Ori104
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal by the owner of a bus ORG 4844 under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Widow of Mohana alias Chintamani filed an application under Section 110 A of the Act for compensation of Rs. 60,000/- claiming that her husband was travelling in a bus on 10-3-1984. At village Totagumuda when the bus stopped he got down from the bus for answering call of nature. When he found the bus to have given a start he gave signal for stopping it. Instead of stopping it driver negligenly driving the bus, dashed against him who sustained fatal injuries. He was carried to Sub-divisional hospital at Parlakhemundi where he was declared dead.3. Owner of the bus in reply stated that there was no accident as claimed. He, however, stated that his liability if any is covered by insurance. Insurer in reply claimed that his liability if any would be confined to the terms of the policy only.4. Claimant examined three witnesses incl...
Tag this Judgment!Naladhar Mahapatra and anr. Vs. Seva Dibya and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori166
A.K. Padhi, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment. T.S. No. 122 of 1973 was filed by Sova Dibya for partition of Schedule 'A' properties, claiming 6 annas share and Title Suit No. 206 of 1973 was filed by her praying for permanent injunction. As in both the suits and facts alleged were same, they were heard analogously and a common judgment was passed in both the suits. In First (contd. on 2nd col.) Appeal No. 34 of 1980, the judgment and decree of T.S. No. 206 of 1973 is challenged, while First Appeal No. 162 of 1978 arises out of T,S. No. 122 of 1973. Defendants 1 and 2 are same in both the appeals.2. The genealogy between the parties as described in the plaint is as follows: --Natha Meihapatra JaiBasuIswarC. S. ParamanandaBanchhanidhi= Sabitri(d-1)BalunkiGunuBhaskar (d-5) Dayanidhi=Chobani(wife) d-7 Pranakrushna Sova Dibya (wife)plff .Braja (d-3)Raja (d-4) Gobardhan Kunlala (wife) d-5The brief facts as stated by the plaintiff are, the properties described in Schedule ...
Tag this Judgment!Paidisetti Bhankaranarayana Vs. Paidisetti Rajeswar Rao and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori92
P.C. Misra, J.1. This appeal under Order 43, Rule I of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') is directed against the order dated 19-8-1989 in M.J.C. No. 10/89 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bherhanpur. The aforesaid miscellaneous proceeding under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code arises out of Title Suit No. 6/89 pending in the same Court praying for partition and separate allotment of the plaintiffs share in the suit schedule properties consisting of houses, moveables and bank accounts.2. The plaintiff in the aforesaid suit is the appellant in this appeal. Defendants 1 and 2 are his brothers and defendant No. 3 is the father of the plaintiff and defendants I and 2. Defendant No. 4 is a partnership firm having defendant No. 3 and his three sons as partners. Defendant No. 5 is the wife of defendant No. 2. Defendants 6, 7 and 8 are the Nationalised Banks where money has been deposited in the names of the partnership and other members of the family. In the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Baikunthanath Dalai Vs. Bula Alias Digambar Jena and ors. Etc.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT505; 1991CriLJ203
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Baikunthanath Dalai, the informant in G.R. Case No. 260 of 1989 of the court of he S.D.J.M., Nayagarh has filed these two petitions under Sections 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr P.C. for short) assailing the orders of the Sessions Judge, Puri admitting the accused opp. parties to bail. Since the petitions relate to the same criminal case and the contentions raised by the petitioner in both the cases are similar, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. On the First Information Report lodged by the petitioner in Sarankul Police Station on 1-8-89 G.R. Case No. 260 of 1989 was initiated against the opp. parties and some others under Sections 147/148/326/ 336/324/302/149, I.P.C. and Sections 25(a)/ 27 of the Arms Act. The case of the prosecution, shortly stated, was that since two years prior to the occurrence there was party faction in the village; while the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Nandakishore Rath Vs. Nanda Alias Ananta Cheran Sahera and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ835
ORDERV. Gopalaswamy, J.1. This revision is preferred by the informant in the case, who is also the father of the victim girl, against the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jaipur, in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 1985 acquitting the accused (the present opposite party No. 1) of the charge Under Section 376, I.P.C.2. The gist of the prosecution case that at village Rahamba (within Dharmasala police station in Cuttack district) on 30-1-1985 at about 8 p.m. as the informant's daughter Champina (P.W. 2) aged about eight years was going to see a Casakathia performance in the village, on the way, the accused took her to his house and committed rape on her and thereby rendered himself liable Under Section 376, I.P.C.3. The accused pleaded that as there was previous enmity between the informant and his father, the informant, through his daughter PW2, has foisted this false case against him. The defence has examined two witnesses to prove the previous enmity between the informant an...
Tag this Judgment!Benudhar Routra Vs. Raula Alias Maheshwar Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ220
ORDERV. Gopalaswamy, J.1. This revision is preferred by the informant in C. R. Case No. 487 of 1984 against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khurda acquitting the accused (the present opposite party No. 1) of the charge under Section 326. I.P.C.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follow : On 29-9-1984 at 8 a.m. at village Kalajhara (within Begunia P.S. in Puri district) as Neba Khujabala was filling up a ditch on the road in front of his house, one Benudhar Sahu and his father objected to it and then there was an altercation between the parties and in the meanwhile. Raul alias Maheshwar Sahu (the present opposite party No. 1) came there and assaulted the said Neba with a spade causing injuries on his person. The present petitioner, who is the brother of the injured Neba, lodged the FIR at Jankia Out Post at 2 p.m. on the same day and on the basis of the said report, police proceeded with the investigation of the case and on completion of the inve...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Nirmal Rao
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR621(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. These are three references made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the following common question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing remuneration of Rs. 9,000 to the karta although there was no specific evidence to the effect that any income earned by the Hindu undivided family other than the share income from the firm necessitated commensurate services which were rendered by the karta ?' 2. All the three assessees are Hindu undivided families. They constitute a partnership firm named as M/s. P. Laxminarayana and Sons. Out of the shares of the joint families in the profits of the firm, Rs. 9,000 was paid to the karta for having looked after the business on behalf of the assessees. 3. Salary given to the karta was not allowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that it is the duty of the karta to manage the family affairs being the guardian and, accordingly, he is not entitled to an...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Illyas Assam Arbi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR452(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The statement of case has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, while valuing the deceased's interest in a partnership firm of which he was a partner under Section 36 of the Estate Duty Act, some of the assets of the said firm could be revalued disregarding the value of these assets as appearing in the balance-sheet of the firm ?'2. The deceased, Assam Sakoor Arbi, died on April 8, 1978. His estate is the subject-matter of the assessment. The deceased was partner of a firm having a rice mill. One-fourth interest of the deceased was valued at Rs. 1,04,939. The balance-sheet of the firm indicated the total value of the rice mill to be Rs. 1,67,942. The accountable person claimed in appeal that 1/4th share of the deceased comes to Rs. 44,486 which is the estate of the deceased. The entire assets o...
Tag this Judgment!The Samaj Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ606Ori
J.M. Mahapatra, J.1. In this writ application, challenge is made to the award dated December 17, 1988 of the Industrial Tribunal. Orissa, Bhubancshwar by the petitioner, the management of 'The Samaj' establishment.2. The facts of the case, most of which are undisputed, may be briefly stated thus. Opposite party No. 3 Banchhanidhi Das at the material time was working as an Assistant Editor in the establishment of the petitioner. By order dated July 1, 1982, he was retired on superannuation on completion of 58th year of age with effect from August 1, 1982, which was, however, extended to August 23, 1982, as his date of birth was later found to be August 24, 1924. Being asked to retire on superannuation, opposite party No. 3 made a grievance before the management that being an employee of the category of working journalists, he was governed by the conditions of service applicable to Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sanyasi Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)88CTR(Ori)102; [1991]188ITR602(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), where the statement of case was called for on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in its conclusion that the minor sons' income from the firm cannot be assessed in the hands of their father as the father has no income of his own ?'2. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 1976-77, the previous year tor which ended on March 31, 1376, the assessee had no income of his own. However, his two minor sons, namely, Santosh Kumar and Rama Krishna, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership in a firm styled M/s. Sanyasi Mohapatra and Sons who received a sum of Rs. 12,950 towards their share of profit. The Income-tax Officer issued notice to the assessee for inclusion of the amount to the nil income for assessment. The assessee filed a return showing nil income. Howe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »