Orissa Court September 1990 Judgments
Bhikari Nayak Vs. Brajabandhu Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori191; 71(1991)CLT571
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff is appellant in this second appeal against a reversing judgment where question for consideration is whether the suit is maintainable under Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which reads as follows :--'Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try and decide any suit or proceeding so far as it relates to any matter which any officer or other competent authority is empowered by order under this Act to decide.'2. Plaintiff has sought for declaration of his title as sikmi tenant under defendant No. 1 in respect of 1 acre 48 decimals of agricultural land in village Bramhagiri governed under the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act') and further declaration that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have no interest in the land. On the basis of these declarations, consequential reliefs have been sought for.3. Case of plaintiff is that his fat...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ch. Rana Vs. Balasore Municipal Council
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori179
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant is appellant in this first appeal against decree for eviction from a tank and damages for illegal occupation thereof.2. Case of plaintiff is that the suit tank is known as Agapokhari. It was part of the estate of Raja Manmathnath Deb an intermediary under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and was recorded in his Anabadi Khata. This tank vested in State of Orissa free from all encumbrances under the said Act. Since tank was used by public plaintiff maintained and managed the tank and being a public tank, it automatically vested in the Municipality under provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. Plaintiff was leasing out the right of pisciculture in the rank since the time it took over management in the year 1953 on specific condition that water of the tank shall not be polluted. Defendant took lease for pisciculture in 1956 beginning from 16-3-1956 on annual rental basis. Lease having expired on 31-3-1973, plaintiff served notice on defendant on 4-4-197...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Venkateswara Timber Depot Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR741(Orissa)
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. A presumptive and pre-emptive tax has been imposed on persons who 'fly-by-night'. This has been done by inserting Sections 44AC and 206C in the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), by the Finance Act, 1988. The drawing of the tax net tighter on these types of persons as an 'anti-evasion measure', as described by the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech, has been assailed in this batch of writ petitions on three counts: (1) lack of legislative competence; (2) violation of Article 14 of the Constitution; and (3) violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.2. Let the two sections under attack be noticed at the outset. Section 44AC reads as below:'44AC. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 28 to 43C, in the case of an assessee, being a person other than a public sector company (hereafter in this section referred to as the buyer), obtaining in any sale by way of auction, tender or any other mode, conducted by any ot...
Tag this Judgment!Narasingha Choudhury Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT717; 1991CriLJ1025
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. The petitioner was convicted Under Section 41 of the Indian Electricity Act for having violated the provisions of Section 28 of the Act and was sentenced to fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo SI for three months. His appeal against the conviction and sentence having failed, he has preferred this revision. The allegation which the petitioner faced during the trial was that he had taken electric connection from his rice mill to a godown, cow-shed and an electric motor for which he had no authority. Both the courts found the charge to be proved and hence convicted the petitioner.2. The sole submission urged by Mr. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that neither Section 28 nor Section 41 has any application to the facts of the case and that accepting the prosecution case in toto to be true, no offence under the Sections is made out. Section 28, so far as is relevant, provides that a person other than a licencee shall not engage in the busine...
Tag this Judgment!Banshidhar Mohanty Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR421(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. The statement of the case has been made by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73 is correct in law ?'In respect of the assessment year 1972-73, return was to be filed by the assessee on or before June 30, 1972. He filed the same only on October 15, 1974. In the proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee explained that he was under the bona fide impression that he could file the return any time before the assessment as provided under Section 15 of the Act and, therefore, in the absence of any mens rea, penalty should not be imposed. The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee did not file any return earlier but indicated the return filed as a revised return as if he had filed a return earlier. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Utkal Flour Mills
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR139(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapartra, J.1. The statement of case has been made to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ), on the following question of law :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in directing the carry forward of the loss of Rs. 2,44,780 to the subsequent year ?'2. There is no dispute in this case that loss determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with Section 139(3) of the Act can be carried forward. However, Section 80 of the Act provides that such loss cannot be carried forward in the circumstances indicated therein. It reads as follows :'80. Submission of return for losses.--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed under Section 139, shall be carried forward and set off under Sub-section (1) of Section 72 or Sub-section (2) of Section 73 or Sub-section (1) of section 74 or Sub-section (3) of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Shri Raj Raj Singh Deo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR188(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the property inherited by the assessee from his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, belonged to the joint family of the assessee and, was thus, not includible in the net wealth of the assessee-individual ?'2. On the death of R. N. Singh Deo, Maharaja of Bolangir, a Hindu governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on March 22, 1975, intestate, his widow, three sons including the assessee and three daughters survived him. The assessee along with the aforesaid class-I heirs succeeded to the separate properties of the late Maharaja. In respect of the years 1975-76 and 1976-77, assessments against the assessee were reopened as property succeeded to by the assessee from out of the separate property of the deceased had escaped assessment. The assesse...
Tag this Judgment!The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sk. Ayeb Ahammed and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC585
L. Rath, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the insurer as against an award determining the compensation payable by the appellant and the respondent No. 3 jointly and severally at Rs. 15, 000/- together with the consolidated cost of Rs. 500/- and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is the submission of Mr. A.K. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the appellant that since it was the specific case of the appellant insurer as was also found by the Tribunal that long before the accident the insurance policy itself had stood cancelled even at the commencement thereof, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to meet the compensation determined. Such contention of the appellant having been rejected by theTribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, Mr. Mohanty has urged that though the insurance certificate Ext A had been issued on 9-12-1981 in favour of the respondent No. 3, th...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Patra and Agency Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: [1993]88STC496(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 24(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the dealer.Statement of the case has been made to this Court on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the absence of a definite finding of the prior approval of the Assistant Commissioner required under Rule 90-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 assessment under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act was in accordance with law ?'Rule 90-B mentioned in the question is a mistake for Rule 90-A since Rule 9-B had been omitted by Notification dated June 30, 1977 and was not connected with the question involved. For the purpose of this reference it is to be read as Rule 90-A.2. The dealer is registered under the Act to carry on business in supply of radio sets, time pieces, wrist-watches, electrical goods, dry-cell batteries and other commodities. In respect of the year 1978-79,...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Pravakar Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT538; 1991CriLJ745
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal.2. Prosecution was launched against 11 accused persons. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 were charged Under Section 395 I.P.C. Accused Nos. 8 to 10 were charged for an offence Under Section 412 I.P.C., and accused No. 11 was charged Under Section 216-A I.P.C. This appeal is directed against acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6. No appeal has been filed against acquittal of accused Nos. 5, 6 and 8 to 11. Main ground of attack to the acquittal of the five respondents is their identification. Therefore, it is to be consider-ed whether the respondents in this appeal were identified by P. Ws. 1 and 4 as claimed by the prosecution since identification has been disbelieved by the trial court on the ground of delay.3. Mr. Jitamitra Mohanti, learned Additional Standing Counsel relied upon the decision reported in (1990) 2 CLR 324 (Satrughna v. State of Orissa in support of his submission that there is no delay in conducting the test ide...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »