Orissa Court October 1991 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Raghu Bhoi and ors. Vs. Pareswar Bhoi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori105; 73(1992)CLT137
ORDERK.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. This revision has been filed by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 who were the judgment-debtors Nos. 1, 2 and 4 respectively in Execution Case No. 2/85 in the Court of the Munsif, Kuchinda, against the order dated 2-11-1989 passed in the said execution case rejecting their objection to the alleged delivery of possession in favour of the decree-holder-plaintiffs.2. The short facts of the case are stated as follows:--The plaintiffs Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 (of the Civil Revision) obtained a decree for partition in Title Suit No. 7 of 1971 on 23-8-1982. The final decree passed in the partition suit has not been challenged in a first appeal by any party and has become final wherein the plaintiffs were allotted Ac. 3.85 dec. of land whereas the defendants were allotted Ac. 3.87 dec. of land. The properties were divided by the Civil Court Commissioner during the final decree proceeding and allotment sheet show that the plaintiffs were allotted land as per Schedu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vincentian Orissa Society
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(Ori)211; [1992]194ITR743(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for adjudication by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer in conformity with the directions given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and thereby setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The background facts are that the assessee was assessed for the assessment year 1973-74 for the accounting period ending on December 31, 1972, on September 18, 1979. The assessee had filed its return of income on September 20, 1973, showing that its taxable income was nil. Subsequently, the Co...
Satyabrata @ Sarat Mallia and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR475
ORDERK.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. These two petitioners have preferred this application for bail Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the short facts of the prosecution case are as follows :2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Balianta police station lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge, Balianta police station at 2 A.M. on 3-8-1991 alleging that the present petitioners while going on a Bajaj scooter bearing registration No. ORB-6970 were searched at Balianta bazar at 12.30 A.M. that night and a cash of Rs. 801/- was found with the accused persons besides 7 grams of Brown sugar was found in the dikky of the scooter. On 3-6-1991 itself the accused persons were forwarded to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar on the aflegation of having committed the offence under Secs. 18 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The SDJM for- warded the petitioners to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Puri who sent back the case record and accused persons to the...
Dambarudhar Panda Vs. Mahendranath Saran
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: 474(1992)CLT54; 1992CriLJ2213; 1992(I)OLR124
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code by the accused.2. Offence under Section 406 (PC and 465 Cr. P. C. are alleged to have been committed in the year 1974. Punishment provided under Section 406 IPC, is for a term of three years. Punishment for an offence under Section 465 Cr. P. C. is for a term of two years. Under Section 468(2)(c) and (3) Cr. P. C. limitation for taking cognisance for offences after 3 years is barred and Section 468(I) Cr. P. C. provides that no Court shall take cognisance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation. Section 470 Cr. P. C. provides for exclusion of time in certain cases. Section 473 Cr. P. C. which is material for this case reads as follows : '473. Extension of period of limitation in certain cases:--Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognisance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the...
Hemanta Kumar Mohapatra Vs. Binod Bihari Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2183
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. The complainant in ICC Case No. 88 of 1981 is the petitioner in this case. The complainant made complaint against 23 accused persons. After the inquiry Under Section 202, Cr. P.C., the learned Magistrate directed by his order dated 10-7-84 that cognizance be taken. Notice was issued to all accused persons including Binod Bihari Mohapatra, the present opposite party who appeared in the court and were released on bail. Charge was framed Under Section 342/34, I.P.C. against all the accused persons. While Anadi and Maheswar, two of the accused persons were also charged Under Section 452, 384/34, IPC. By mistake. Binod was not shown in the charge sheet and in place of Binod, the name of Dinabandhu appeared in the charge sheet. The complainant led the evidence and after conclusion of evidence, the case was posted for recording statements of the accused persons. On 17-10-1987 the complainant made a petition before the trial court stating that there was bona fide mistake...
Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR344(Orissa)
A. PASAYAT J. - At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') for adjudication under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee entitled to the deduction of interest of Rs. 1,97,616 while computing its income from business ?'The factual position as culled from the statement of case submitted by the Tribunal is as follows :The assessee is a limited company deriving income from business in the manufacture and sale of ferro-silicon. During the assessment year 1975-76, corresponding to the previous year ending on December 31, 1974, the assessee invested a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs in equity shares of a company styled Indian Metals and Carbide Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the subsidiary company'). Apart from the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›