Orissa Court September 1990 Judgments
Jethu Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT381; 1991CriLJ2012
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. The petitioners who were prosecuted under Section 37 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 but were found guilty of contravention of Rule 4 of the Orissa Timber and Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'T.T. Rules, 1967' and were sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for one month more and the conviction having been confirmed in appeal but the sentence having been modified to only fine of Rs. I,000/- each in default to undergo S.I. for one month, have preferred this revision.2. The facts on which the petitioners faced prosecution are that on 3-7-82 the concerned Forester received information of illegal felling of 28 Bija logs and one Dhanra log in the Bacluan Tikira (P.R.F.) and communicated the information to the Forest Range Officer, Kanika keeping watch on the logs. On 7-7-82 the Forest Guard having ascertained that the petitioners had gone in a truck to transport the logs ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsewak Kashinath Vs. SarafuddIn and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori51; 71(1991)CLT49
ORDER1.This revision raises an interesting question of law with regard to the interpretation of Rule 6A of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is the petitioner. After dismissal of his suit as not maintainable, the counter-claim filed by the defendants tor eviction of the plaintiff was allowed to proceed which was registered as T.S. No. 12-A of 1979. The plaintiff filed an application on 5-3-1986 invoking the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge under Order 8, Rule 60, Code of Civil Procedure, praying to reject the counter-claim for eviction. The Subordinate Judge having dismissed that petition by order dated 13-3-1986, the plaintiff has filed me present revision.2. The short facts are that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of a plot of land on 22-6-1979. which was registered as Title Suit No. 12 of 1979. The defendants filed their written statement on 15-10-197...
Tag this Judgment!Fakir Khan Vs. Kuanr Khan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori83; 70(1990)CLT851
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendant in the appellant against the final decree in a suit for partition. Defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. Their father deceased Najib Khan was the owner of plot No. 952 Khata No. 1297, touzi No. 2616 situated at Dawan Bazar in the town of Cuttack measuring Ac, O. 86 decimals. Admittedly, plaintiff has 1/3rd interest and defendant has 2/3rd interest. Najib Khan died in 1932. The parties were continuing in joint possession, though plaintiff was keeping a different portion and defendant was keeping a different portion. The defendant however got the property mutated in his name in the revenue records. Plaintiff filed an application before the Tahasildar for correction of the same and that was allowed in respect of her 1/3rd share on 17-9-70. On an appeal being carried, the S. D.O. reversed the order dated 17-9-70 of the Tahsildar vide his order dated 16-5-71. Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit claiming l/3rd interest in the suit properties.2. The defend...
Tag this Judgment!B.J. Bhambhani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Ori)166; [1991]190ITR480(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee.2. The assessee is a firm. Since the assessment year 1965-66 it was enjoying the benefit of registration granted under Section 185(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. In respect of the subsequent years, this registration had its effect as the assessee was filing the declaration as provided under Section 184(7) of the Act.3. In respect of the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee was required to file the declaration before July 31, 1978, the time allowed under Section 139(1) of the Act for furnishing the return of income for the subsequent assessment year. Within that period the assessee did not file the declaration and, after expiry of the time, a declaration was filed under Section 184(7) of the Act on August 28, 1978. Along with such declaration, no explanation for the delay was furnished. Later on, however, an application was file...
Tag this Judgment!Basudev Naik Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT146; 1991CriLJ1594
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal by the convict from Jail. He has been convicted u/ Sections 376 and 324, IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years in respect of offence Under Section 376, IPC and one year in respect of offence Under Section 324, IPC. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Another accused has been acquitted and no appeal has been preferred against acquittal.2. P.W. 5 is wife of P.W. 4. Prosecution case is that on 29-5-1985, they returned from Phulbani in bus and got down at G. Udayagiri at about 8 or 9 p.m. They left G. Udayagiri for their village which is at a distance or 4 K.m. only at about mid-night. It was noonlit night. After some distance when they reached near a Bridge, both the accused approached them. Accused Basudav Naik who was known to P.W. 4 asked for a Bidi and getting reply in negative Basudev snatched away Rs. 50/-from him. Accused Basudev assaulted P.W. 4 with a knife and injured him. Removing a lungi from bag of P...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Barik Vs. Gurubari Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1473
ORDERL. Rath, J. 1. This revision is at the instance of the informant (P.W. 1) assailing the acquittal of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 16 of the charges under Sections 147, 341, 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. It is his case that while he was sitting inside his Bari, the cow of the opposite party No. 2 damaged the boiled rice of P.W. 4 at which the dog of P. W. 4 barked away the cow which in the process fell into cow dung pit. As a result P. W. 1 raised hulla hearing which opposite party Nos. 2 and 13 came to the spot and finding the cow to be in that condition blamed P. W. 1 as being the cause of the same. Opposite party No. 13 gave slaps to P. W. 1 and taking advantage of the situation all the opposite party Nos. 1 to 16, who had long standing litigation with him, forming an unlawful assembly entered inside his house, dragged him and his mother outside and assaulted his mother by means of slaps and stones causing bleeding injuries on her head as well as to the nose of the informant...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder Rout Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1595
L. Rath, J.1. The petitioner having been convicted under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Transit Rules') and sentenced to undergo SI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo further SI for two months and such conviction and sentence having been confirmed in appeal, has preferred this revision.2. The petitioner was tried for the offence that on 10-12-1980 his saw mill running in the name of Satyanarayana Saw Mill was raided at about 2.45 p.m. The raid party found some logs inside the mill premises without any hammer mark and the petitioner was also not able to produce any licence or permit for keeping the logs. The logs were seized and the matter was investigated into after completion of which the prosecution report was submitted. The petitioner having denied the offence, the trial ensued. The case of the prosecution was established through seven witnesses all of whom stated regarding the fact of raid and seiz...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Chandra Ray Vs. State of Orissa, Represented Through Secretary, ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-11-1990
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR42
ORDER1. Aggrieved by order dated 5-2-1990 (Annexure-16) passed by the Government in the Food and Civil Supplies Department cancelling the permit No. 10180 dated 6-4-1969 granted to the petitioner for installation of a rice mill over plot No. 1178 under Khata No. 27 in mouza Cadarupass, the petitioner has filed this writ application for the quashing thereof by certiorari.2. The gravamen of the allegations on which the permit is cancelled is the close vicinity of the rice mill to the Badatara U. P. School. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the cancellation is ultra vires the powers of the permit granting authority inasmuch as the power has net been vested in the said authority to cancel the permit on the ground stated. Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties have filed returns. It is stated in the returns that on several complaints received from the villagers and others to the effect that the location of the rice mill close to the school would disturb the tranquilli...
Tag this Judgment!Savani Transport Ltd. and anr. Vs. Kamraju Bisoi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-11-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT40; 1991CriLJ1073
L. Rath, J.1. The S. D. J. M., Berhampur having taken cognizance against the petitioners Under Section 448 I.P.C. on a complaint filed by the opposite party, the petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this Court to quash the cognizance taken as well as the proceeding against them. The admitted facts are that the petitioner No. 1 took the shop house of the opposite party on rent in pursuance of a rent deed executed on 5-7-86. At the time the deed was executed one Mr. M. V. Prasad through whom the petitioner No. 1 is represented as per the complaint petition was the Branch Manager but he has since been transferred and the petitioner No. 2 has taken over charge as the Branch Manager. As per the agreement the tenancy was to expire on 5-6-89, but prior to that on 1-5-89 the opposite party gave a notice to petitioner No. 2 to vacate the premises by 5-6-89. A reply was sent by the petitioners' advocate to the opposite party on 19-5-89 stating that the notice was not legal, that it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Charan Panigrahi and ors. Vs. Radhamadhab Pande and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori248
V. Gopalasway, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant prefers this appeal against the judgment dated 9-5-1979 and decree dated 22-6-1979 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Balesore in Original Suit No. 29 of 1976-III decreeing the plaintiff's suit, on contest,with costs for recovery of Rs. 10,845.78 paise together with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.2. The plaintiffs case may be briefly stated as follows:The plaintiff is a registered money-lender and on 20-4-1975 the defendant borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 10,000/- executing a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the said amount, on demand, together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. On 15-7-1975 the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards the dues of the said loan and made an endorsement to that effect on the reverse side of the promissory note. Thereafter, the defendant did not pay any further amount towards the discharge of the promissory note dues despite repeated demands made by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »