Orissa Court June 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.
Jhatu Delei Vs. Baishnaba Charan Biswal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ45
ORDERB.N. Dash, J.1. This revision is directed against the final order Under Section 145(6)(a) of the Criminal P.C. 1973 (for short 'the Code') declaring the possession of the first party (opposite party herein) over the disputed land measuring an area of 8 Kadis x 66 Kadis lying on the eastern side of Hal Plot No. 2697 under Khatian No. 242 of Ambasala; a village under Balikuda Police Station in the district of Cuttack.2. Basu Delei and Lokenath Delei, who are dead, were two second cousins. Padma-bati is the widow of Basu, whereas Bhatu (petitioner-second party) is the son of Loka-nath. Both the aforesaid brothers had 23 decimals of Gharabari land in plot No. 2422 of Khatian No. 101 in the aforesaid village and they had been jointly recorded in the Sabik settlement record-of-rights of the year 1931. In an amicable partition between them, each got 11 1/2 decimals of Gharabari land and they possess their respective shares separately. After their death, Padmabati, as widow, succeeded to ...
Brajabandhu Sahu and ors. Vs. Krupasindhu Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR121
B.N. Dash, J.1. This writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution is for quashing Annexure-3 whereby the Commissioner of Consolidation has directed to record the disputed lands measuring Ac. 1. 88 1/2 decimals in the name of the present opp. party No. 1 and petitioners -in the Land Register prepared Under Section 6 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short 'the Consolidation Act').2. One Shyamasundar Sahu died in 1976 leaving behind three sons namely, Brajibandhu (petitioner-1), Krupasindhu (O. P. 1) and Dinabandhu (petitioner-2), Radhanuni and Sundarmani were respectively the wives of Brajabandhu and Krupasindhu and they are dead, whereas Kanakamani (petitioner-3) is the wife of Dinabandhu. Admittedly, while the three- brother's were joint they purchased lands separately either in their mames or in the names of their wives. The disputed lands measuring Ac. 1.88 1/2 decimals were acquired either in the name of B...
K. Narayan Patra Vs. Gopinath Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3219; 1991(II)OLR301
A. Pasayat, J.1. Since a common point relating to propriety of orders passed by learned judicial Magistrate First Class, Banpur dispensing with personal attendance of opp. party-accused Under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') is involved, both cases are taken up together and this judgment will govern them. Fact situation is almost identical in both the cases.2. In Criminal Revision No 170 of 1989 order dated 21-1-1989 in I. CC Case No. 27.of 1988 is impugned ; whereas in Criminal Revision No. 501 of 1989 order dated 12-6-1989 in I. CC Case No. 46 of 1988 is impugned. Both the cases were instituted on the basis of complaint filed by present petitioner. Cognizance under Secs. 420/294 of. of Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC') in the former, and Under Section 379 IPC, in the latter case has been taken. On receipt of summons, accused-opp. party prayed for dispensing with his personal attendance and to permit appearance by his Pleader. It was inter ...
Rama Chandra Agarwalla Vs. Sri Bijay Ketan Sensarma
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR449
L. Rath, J.1. The sole question urged in this revision is that cognizance taken against the petitioner Under Section 406 IPC is liable to be quashed on the twin grounds of the prosecution being barred by limitation and even otherwise there having been gross delay in instituting the case. The brief facts are that the opposite party lodged an FIR on 1-3-1974 alleging mis- appropriation. The FIR having ended in a final report and the opp. party on being issued notice, filed a protest petition which was treated as a complaint case and in that case the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 7-9-1982.2. Assailing the order it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as the occurrences in respect of which the allegations have been made were of the years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the cognizance would not have been taken since Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C') prohibited taking of cognizance after expiry of the period of limitatio...
State of Orissa Vs. Sahadeb Pujhari
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR336
R.C. Patnaik, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gunupur, in Sessions Case No. 3/84 acquitting the respondent of the charges under Section 304/326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act and for enhancement of the sentence imposed for his conviction under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows : Some residents of villages Dimiriguda, Doragaon and Tikarpada within the jurisdiction of Ambadola police station in the district of Koraput went to Ringabali jungle for shooting games which is locally known as Haka hunting of wild animals. The respondent was one of them and was holding a single barrel bridge load gun belonging to Sadasiva Guru, a member of the group. Three other persons, namely, Bharat Pujhari. Tangara Pujhari and Goura Dandasena, wore also carrying guns. They and the respondent took their position at the foot of the hill. The others went up the hill with a ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.P.R. Construction
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR492(Orissa)
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The following question of law has been referred for answer to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest of Rs. 1,99,109 awarded by the arbitrator is not exigible to tax being in the nature of ex gratia payment but forming an integral part of the award money of Rs. 4,31,107 out of which Rs. 2,32,000 is decided to be a revenue receipt and, therefore, exigible to tax and if interest awarded in this case could be ex gratia payment or it follows out of agreement between parties to a contract ?'What had happened was that the assessee had executed some contract and, subsequently, at the instance of the parties, the dispute arising out of the contract relating to payment was referred to arbitration in which an award of a sum of Rs. 2,32,000 was made along with a sum of Rs. 1,99,109 towards interest. The interest amount as awarded by the arb...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Saroja Devi Moda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR389(Orissa)
1. These are references under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), wherein the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, has framed the following common question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) to the assessee in respect of his interest in the property situated at 52, Burtolla Street, Calcutta?'2. From the orders passed by the different authorities as well as that of the Tribunal, it transpires that the house in question had been given to the assessee, Saroja Devi, along with her sister by the owner, the late Anna-purna Devi Sarogi, under a will and the sister, Shanti, had parted with her interest in the property in favour of Saroja by a registered gift deed, thereby Saroja becoming the sole owner in respect of the property in question. Under the provisions of Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act, one house or a part o...
Ashok Kumar Barik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1849; 1991(II)OLR99
A. Pasayat, J.1. These two appeals, one by the accused and the other by the State, have common matrix. The heart-rending factual scenario as unfolded is a sad reflection of the present day decadent and permissive society. Young life of a teen-aged girl full of potentialities has been lost, and another young brilliant student's future is in jeopardy because he is the accused. Background facts as depicted by the prosecution are tragic to the core.2. Accused, a brilliant student, recipient of National Merit Scholarship, was friendly with Amarendra Sahu (PW 1), brother of the deceased Nirupama. At the request of the family members of the deceased, the accused started giving her tuition. The platonic relationship of a teacher and a student did not remain so for long, and the relationship blossomed into a love affair, There was parental objection and tutorship was withdrawn. The accused objected, did not take it in good spirit, and threatened the deceased as well as the family members with d...
Niranjan Ojha Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1863; 1991(II)OLR115
A. Pasayat, J.1. This appeal is off-shoot of an incident which has resulted in the death of a teen-aged girl. The appeal by accused Ashok Kumar Barik, the alleged assailant questioning the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack and the appeal filed by the State characterising conviction and sentence to be inadequate, are the subject-matter of consideration in Criminal Appeal No 232 of 1990 and Government Apoeal No, 54 of 1990. which have been disposed of separately. The appellant was tried and convicted Under Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 1PC).2. The facts as alleged by the prosecution stated in brief, are that one Ashok Kumar Barik brutally assaulted Nirupama Sahu by a Bhufaii, causing large number of injuries on her body including some vita! parts which subsequently resulted in her death. The role ascribed to the appellant is that he carried away accused Ashok, after he had committed the macabre act, in his cycl...
State of Orissa Vs. Arjuna Das and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3275; 1991(II)OLR127
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Acquittal of respondents is assailed by the State in this appeal Under Section 378, Cr. P. C.2. Both the respondents were prosecuted for offence Under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Order'; made by State Gove- rnment in exercise of power Under Section 3 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 is the Proprietor of M/s. Bharat General Store, Jhirsuguda and respondent No. 1 is manager of respondent No. 2.3. Prosecution case is that respondent No. 2 had licence under the Order for the year 1980 as wholesale dealer as well as retail dealer in name of his bjsinsss concern M/s. Bharat General Store. For the year 1981 although licence as whole-sale dealar was renewed, such licence of retail dealership had not been renewed. Without renewal of retail licence he was selling Amul Spray to consumers. On 2J-7-1981 on being dep...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »