Orissa Court June 1991 Judgments
B.P.R. Construction Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Ori)6; [1991]192ITR534(Orissa)
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The assessee is a partnership-firm and carries on contract works. It maintains its accounts as per mercantile system. It undertook the work of supply of stones during the years 1966-67 to 1968-69. A dispute arose regarding some claim of the assessee which was referred to arbitration in the year 1972. The arbitrator gave his award on November 5, 1976, and fixed a sum of Rs. 2,32,000 as payable to the assessee by way of compensation. The compensation as awarded was treated as the income of the accounting year which ended on March 31, 1977. The assessee took a point that the compensatioa was in the nature of a capital receipt and as such was not assessable as income. This contention was rejected by the Assessing Officer. On an appeal being preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the order of the Income-tax Officer was upheld. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the same view was taken. The assessee prayed for a reference which was rejected. On appro...
Tag this Judgment!Rahas Bhoi Vs. Surjyabhanu Nag and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR194
A. Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned counsel for parties.Though several contentions were raised by learned counsel for parties, I feel that interest of justice would be best served if the matter is re-heard by learned Executive Magistrate, Bargarh. This has become imperative because of the fact that proceeding which was initiated in the year 1979, came to be posted before several Executive Magistrates and some- times on transfer of the proceedings, it is not clear whether the Executive Magistrate passed impugned order had occasion to hear the parties at any point of time. This impression is gathered because after 20-11-1985 there does not appear to be any date when pirties were heard. It is desirable that when an authority takes up a matter for disposal, he should have opportunity of hearing parties himself. This is one of the salutory demands of the principles of natural justice that due and proper opportunity should be granted to the parties to place materials before effective adjudication...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Jena Vs. Sara Alias Saraswati Dei
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR525
A. Pasayat, J.1. An interesting question whether amendment is permissible in respect of an application for grant of probate under Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short 'the Act') is involved in this revision appli- cation.2. Facts giving rise to the application are as follows : Petitioner filed an application which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 14 of 1977 in the Court of the District judge, Cut tack for grant of Probate of a Will stated to have been executed on 5 3-1970 and registered on 7-3-1 70 with the averment that same was last Will and testament of one Dhaneswar Jena, who died on 8-3-1970. Petitioner claimed to be adopted son of Dhaneswar, and opp. party his daughter, The application was taken up by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jajpur for adjudication, before whom several applications were fifed. We are concerned with one such application, by which the petitioner wanted amendment of petition for probate. In the application for amendment, prayer was made to the effect that a Wi...
Tag this Judgment!Sujan Singh and ors. Vs. Premananda Satapathy
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR167
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Applicants seeking to be added as defendants in a suit under Order 1, Rule 8 CPC, have filed this revision Under Section 115; CPC against the order refusing such application2. Claiming part of the land on which village Hangura is situated plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the villagers after obtaining permission under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC. Some of the villagers were made defendants to represent the village. On basis of 'notice published under Order 1, Rule 8 CPC, petitioners filed application for being added as parties. Application was filed or 30-10-1989, the date fixed in the notice.3. Plaintiff objected to the application on the ground that appli- cants have not explained how their interest would be affected if they are not made parties.4. Relying on the decision of this Court reported in ILR (1979) Cut 174 : (Chintamani Mahasuar and Ors. v. Kasinath Mahasuar and Ors.) trial Court held that applicants not having been able to explain how the...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindranath Rout Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2309; 1991(II)OLR445
L. Rath, J.1. These ten cases seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner arise out of the common set of facts and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. During the period 1966 to 1976 the petitioner was functioning as the Accountant in East Coast Salt and Chemical Industries Ltd. In 1976 he was promoted as the Assistant Accounts Officer. In the year 1978 certain financial irregularities were detected as having been committed by him and he was called upon to make good the loss to the extent of Rs. 60,000/-. Such amount was deposited in two instalments on 12-1-1979 and 25-1-1379 respectively, and on 28-3-1980 he was dismissed from service, thereafter in the year 1983 a complaint case was filed against the petitioner by the management of the company, numbered as I. C. C. Case No. 114 of 1983 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, alleging commission of offences punishable under Secs. 409, 467, 471, and 477 IPC The co...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Railway Rates Tribunal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori15
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. The Union of India, who owns the South Eastern Railway as the petitioner has challenged the order of the Railway Rates Tribunal, Madras, Opp. Party No. 1 dated 31-3-1983 as per Annexure-7 to this writ application and prayed for quashing the same. Opp. Party No. 2 is an industrial unit which was privately owned previously, but later, was acquired by the Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Orissa as one of its units and is served by the petitioner's branch line (Railways) passing through the Barbil Railway Station.2. To facilitate in flow of raw materials and outflow of finished products from Opp. Party No. 2's work, an application was made by the Opp. Party No. 2 to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Railways (Administration), Calcutta when it was privately owned, for providing a temporary private siding at Barbil. At the time of application, Opp. Party No. 2 was known as Kalinga Industries Ltd. having its Head Office at 36 Chittaranjan Avenue. In the year ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Pattnaik Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR566(Orissa)
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. These applications appertain to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1965-66. As a common question relating to valuation of shares held by the assessee in Messrs. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. came up for consideration during the aforesaid assessment years, the authorities including the learned Appellate Tribunal have passed a common order and have valued the shares as per the break-up method mentioned in Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. At the behest of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the peculair facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, should have been applied for the purpose of determining the value of the shares in Kalinga Tubes Limited held by the assessee ?'2. The peculiar facts about which mention has been made in the aforesaid question relate to a long line of litigation involving the assessee. This court also had occasion to deal with the dispute and ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kanta Rani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR484(Orissa)
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. At the behest of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly sustained the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax treating Rs. 50,000 as unexplained investment ?'2. The basic facts giving rise to the question is that the assessee was a partner of the firm, M/s. Krishna Steel Industries, Rajgangpur. A sum of Rs. 50,000 was found deposited in the name of the assessee in the firm on April 11, 1973. She was asked to explain the source of the investment and she stated that the amount came by way of loan from one A. Agrawal alias Arjun Prasad Bajoria of Calcutta and a confirmation letter signed by Shri Bajoria was filed before the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer accepted the explanation. The aforesaid Bajoria was required to state ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kamala Saha and ors. Vs. Jogeswar Prasad Saha and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori23
A.K. Padhi, J.1. An Arbitrator isnormally, target of attack, by those very persons who choose him to arbitrate the differences between them. Parties repose confidence on him because normally he is the well wisher of all the parties concerned and unrelated with the dispute. He is chosen to decide the matter with the desired intention that the decision shall be respected. More often than not, after the decision is given, allegations pour in impugning mala fides, non-application of mind so on and so forth. These two appeals are of the same category, One Nathuram Khandanwal, a businessman of Baripada was chosen by the parties concerned to act as Arbitrator and necessary orders were passed by this Court in O. J. C. No. 1174 of 1979. All the parties executed agreement of reference in favour of the Arbitrator. Award was passed by the Arbitrator which was not accepted by two sets ofdefendants who filed objections under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Rejecting the objections of two ...
Tag this Judgment!Dodla Bhaskar Rao Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori161; [1994]80CompCas57(Orissa)
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. In this revision petition filed under Section 115 read with Section 102, Civil Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.), the defendant has assailed the decision of the lower appellate Court by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-opposite party was allowed and the conditional decree passed by the trial Court was modified. 2. The factual backdrop of the case over which there is no controversy is as follows: The petitioner had availed a gold loan of Rs.900/- from the State Bank of India, Kasipur Branch (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank) on 24-10-83 securing the same by executing a demand promissory note and by pledging gold ornaments with gross weight of 7.7 grams and net weight of 7 grams and stipulating therein to repay the loan with interest at the rate of 11.5% per annum. The Bank instituted the suit, M.S. No. 102 of 1986, in the Court of the Munsif, Rayagada for realisation of Rs. 1261.40, pendente lite and future interest thereon at the contractual rate ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »