Orissa Court July 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.
Rajaram Jaiswal Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR178
A. Pasayat, J.1. Though this matter was listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel for parties the same is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr. G. Mukherji for petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel.2. Main grievance of the petitioner is that a truck bearing registration No. ORU 6845 has not been released to him either by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bonai (in short 'SDJM') or the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bonai. Each has assigned different reason for not releasing the vehicle to him. Undisputedly, the truck in question was seszed by the Sub-Inspector, Lahunipara Police Station in connection with alleged offences under Secs. 379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC).The learned SDJM refused to release the vehicle on the ground that the petition Under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') was not maintainable. The Authorised Officer-cum D.F.O. refused to release the ...
Krushna Chandra Sahu Vs. Bansidhar Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-03-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR247
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The order passed by the Land Reforms Commissioner under Annexure-6 and the order of the Addl. District Magistrate under Annevure-5 are being challenged in this writ application, Inter alia, on the ground that these authorities committed gross error in coming to the conclusion that the opp. party No. 1 was entitled to deposit the amount of compensation within one year of the appellate order and thereby the penalty attached to the non-payment of the amount will not be attracted.2. The short facts of the case are that opp. party No. 1 filed an application Under Section 4 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act to be declared as an occupancy raiyat under the petitioner. That application was disposed of by order dated 28-7-1970 ex parte and the Revenue Officer directed that the said opp. party No. 1 should pay the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 367.15 to the petitioner within one year from the date of the order failing which the land will revert back to the petitioner. Th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tarun Udyog
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-02-1991
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(Ori)181; [1991]191ITR688(Orissa)
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The assessee is a partnership firm and it derived its income from manufacture and sale of charcoal. It was entitled to certain deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). Though the deduction was allowed, the same was calculated on the profit earned by the assessee less the investment allowance allowed under Section 32A of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention of the assessee that, for granting deduction as contemplated by Section 80HH, the profit as reduced by allowing investment allowance was not the legal way to compute the same. On an appeal being preferred, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the case of the assessee. The Tribunal, however, accepted the contention. At this, the Department felt aggrieved and, at its behest, the following question has been referred to this court for answer : 'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing allowance of relief under Section 80HH...
Ramani Mohan Mandal and ors. Vs. Santosh Kumar Mandal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-02-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR174
A. Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Correctness of a composite order under Secs. 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1073 (in short 'the Code') is the subject-matter of challenge In this revision application.2. By the impugned order, the learned Executive Magistrate,Kujang ordered Under Section 145 of the Code that members of both parties were restrained from going upon the disputed land and directed them to appear before the Court on 10-12-1987 and file their show cause, It was ordered Under Section 146(2) of the Code that the land was attached and the Revenue inspector, Japa was appointed as receiver for the disputed land.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such a composite order is not envisaged in law. A conspectus of the provisions contained in Secs. 145 and 146 of the Coda makes it clear that there is nothing in the Code prohibiting the Magistrate to pass composite order from which it can be known that he had exercised jurisdictio...
Manoranjan Nayak Vs. Babu Alias Brajendra Panda and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-02-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3214
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Judgment of acquittal passed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore is impugned in this revision application by the informant.2. Opposite Party No. 1 faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').3. Prosecution case bereft of unnecessary details is that on 6-11-1983 at 3 a.m., the accused-opposite party No. 1 set fire to house of informant resulting in great loss and damage to a row of houses belonging to the informant part of which was let out to tenants also. The motive for this crime was indicated to be rivalry between informant's brother and accused-opposite party No. 1 relating to puja committee affairs. The incident was reported to the Assistant Sub-Inspector in-charge of Rupsa Out Post on 6-11-1983 at 7 a.m.Plea of defence was one of denial and false implication was also pleaded.4. Prosecution to further its case examined six witnesses, P.W. 4 is the informant, P. W. 3 i...
Shankar Roul Vs. Ramakanta SwaIn and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-01-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ4020; 1991(II)OLR285
A. Pasayat, J.1. The only point involved in this revision application is whether the requirements of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code ) were complied with.2. Petitioner as complainant filed a complaint petition in the Court of the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Athgarh (in short 'SDJM') on 4-7-1987. Initial statement was recorded on 7-8-1987, and the matter was directed to be placed on 4-9-1987 for enquiry Under Section 202 of the Code. Complainant was directed to produce his witnesses on the date fixed. The matter was adjourned from time to time and ultimately on /-11-1987 two witnesses were produced. The matter was again adjourned to 20-11-1987. On that date the enquiry was closed and the matter was directed to be placed on 25-11-1987 for orders. By the impugned order of even date the complaint petition was dismissed for non-complaince of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202, for non-examination of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›