Orissa Court August 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.
Shakti Kumar Agrawala Vs. Stata of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ993; 1991(II)OLR428
B.N. Dash, J.1. This revision is directed against the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir upholding the conviction of the petitioner Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and sentence six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months.2. The prosecution case, shortly stated is that on 10-3-1980 at about 11 A. M. the Food Inspector, Bolangir Chittaranjan Das (PW 2) inspected M/s. Bansal Store at Patnagarh, a grocery shop of which the petitioner and his father Sheonandrai Agrawala were the partners- and suspecting the stock of Suji exposed for sale to be adulterated collected sample thereof in accordance with the provisions of the rules framed under the Act. The sample so taken was aqually divided into three parts and each part was kept in dry clean bottle and thereafter each bottle was duly sealed and labelled. On...
Nagendranath Roy Vs. Dr. Bijoy Kumar Dasburma and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-08-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT300; 1992CriLJ1871; 1991(II)OLR527
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question correctness of order passed by learned Sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack ( in short the 'SDJM') dismissing a complaint filed by him alleging that opp. parties herein committed mischief resulting in death of a calf and therefore, were liable to be punished in terms of Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').2. Petitioner's complaint indicated following background : A calf belonging to him suffered from ailment on 12-4-1986. As the ailment aggravated, opp. party No. 1 who is a Veterinary Doctor was called for rendering medical check up. Opp. party Mo. 1, after checking prescribed certain medicines and infections: The daughter of the complainant-petitioner objected to administration of prescribed injection, since she felt that that was risky to be administered, and requested the Doctor to prescribe some other medicine to be orally administered. He prescribed some pills which were given to the calf. On 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sajitha Bakery
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR658(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue. 2. The following question has been referred to this court for answer : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on October 13, 1980, for the assessment year 1977-78 was barred by limitation and so, is bad in law ?' 3. In respect of the assessment year 1977-78, the Income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the returned figure submitted by the assessee and complying with the requirement under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act as it then was, forwarded a draft of the proposed assessment order to the assessee. Objections to the draft assessment order having been raised by the assessee, it was sent to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for approval, After approval, the assessment was completed and an order was made by the income-tax Officer on October 13, 19...
R. Jagadish Murty Vs. Balaram Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ996; 1991(II)OLR390
A. Pasayat, J.1. Order of acquittal passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chatrapur is assailed by the alleged victim.2. Prosecution version is that on 21-8-1984 in the evening one Cangadhar Behera, informant (PW 1) was coming along with Ulia Mahakuda (PW 6 ) from Jamuni in a bicycle When they reached at a road-junction, the lungi of informant gave way for which they stopped there. At that point of time, petitioner along with one Jagat Mohan Patnaik (PW 12) were coming, riding a Luna moped. When the petitioner and the said Jagat Mohan Patnaik reached the Panchudola Tota junction accused Balaram Mohanty kept his bicycle in front of the Luna, in order to obstruct petitioner's movement. At that time accused Laxminarayan Mohanty, Pari Mohanty and Suduru Mallik armed with deadly weapons came out of the shop of accused Govinda Padhi, surrounded petitioner and assaulted him. Accused Laxminarayan dealt a Kati blow which struck the left thumb of petitioner, he raised his left hand to obst...
Bighnaraj Tripathy Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT279; 1992CriLJ2276; 1992(I)OLR340
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner assails his conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the MPC) and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment awarded by learned Subordinate Judge-cum-J.M.F.C., Jeypore, and affirmed in appeal by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore.2. The accusations which form the basis of trial, are that certain records of judicial proceedings were found missing from the Court of J.M.F.C. Umarkote, Koraput on 9-11-1982, by Typist-cum-Clerk in charge of general files (PW 1). On 20-11-1982, the Nazir (PW 2) on getting information that the records might be in the attache of petitioner, proceeded to his own house where petitioner was temporarily staying, found attache was partially locked and on opening the unlocked side, found certain wearing apparels and case records. This inspection was done in the presence of some Advocates of Umarkote Bar. The attache was taken to the police station, and handed over to the in-charge ASI of police (PW 5)....
Fagnu Bhoi and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1808
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioners call in question the conviction and sentence Under Sections 366/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') as awarded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bargarh and upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh. The petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month more for the offence Under Section 366, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month more for the offence Under Section 376/511, IPC. In appeal the conviction and sentence Under Section 366, IPC were set aside; but the conviction and sentence Under Section 376/511, IPC were confirmed.2. The prosecution case, bereft of unnecessary details, is that on 4-11-1984 Santosini, the victim lady had gone to the fields to pluck green leaves. Thereafter she went to a nearby canal to take her bat...
Sridhar Das Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2907
A. Pasayat, J.1. The plea of right of private defence advanced by the accused having been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, the informant has filed this application for revision.2. Background facts are that one Dasarathi lost his life due to murderous assault by opposite party No. 2 Saunta alias Ratnakar Das. The prosecution version was that the occurrence took place on 26-4-1987 at about 10 a.m. when Dasarathi was putting up a fence along with his father Sridhar (P. W. 1). The accused protested to such act, and did not allow the deceased to continue, and in the altercation that followed, no words were exchanged and suddenly the accused dealt a lathi blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down, was taken to hospitals, and succumbed on the next day. The accused while accepting almost the entire prosecution version, added that the deceased and his father had assaulted him, as a result of which he sustained injuries and with a view to protect himsel...
Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR453
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.2. For development of industries in the State incentive is declared to be given. A person liale to pay Sales Tax, may either defer to pay the same or get exemption both under the Orissa Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. For working out the industrial policy of 1989, a notification has been issued by the State Government Under Section 7 of the O. S. T. Act and rules have been made by the Orissa State under the Central Sales Tax Act wherein mutatis mutandis, the provisions of the notification Under Section 7 of the O. S. T. Act have been made applicable.3. The petitioner owns a medium scale industry. He made applications for exemption for payment of sales tax both under the O S. T. Act as well as under the O. S. T. Act. Prayer for exemption having been refused, the petitioner has approached this- Court. There is a stipulated time for filing application in the notification Under...
Prabhat Kishor Sahu Vs. Sambalpur University and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori83
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The decision of this case depends on interpretation of the provision in Regulation 18(C) under Chapter III of the Sambalpur University Regulations.2. The petitioner Shri Prabhat Kishor Sahu appeared in the Bachelor of Arts Examination held in the month of March, 1987 with honours in Statistics; he was declared to have passed the Examination with second class honours in July, 1987 (vide result sheet Annexure 1); on his application a provisional certificate was issued to him on 31st July, 1987 wherein it was stated that he passed the B.A. Examination with second class honours in Statistics (Vide Annexure 2) and in the mark-sheet issued to him (Annexure 3) the said position was also reiterated. In November, 1990 when he received the B.A. degree certificate he found that there was no mention of honours in it. His requests to the Principal, G. H. College, Sambalpur (opp. party No. 2) and the Registrar of the University (opp. party No. 1) for correction of the certificat...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahalakshmi Film Distributors
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Ori)34; [1991]192ITR599(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue. The question raised for an answer is follows ;'Whether the assessee is a registered-firm and any loss which cannot be set off against any other income of the firm shall be apportioned between the partners of the firm and they alone shall be entitled to havethe amount of the loss set off and carried forward for set off under Sections 70, 71, 72, 73 74 and 74A ?'The substance of the question is as follows :Whether a firm which is entitled to set off its loss against its income in a particular year can carry forward the same to get the benefit in the subsequent year.For answering this question, Section 75 of the Act is to be kept in mind. It reads as follows :'75. Losses of registered firms.--(1) Where the assessee is a registered firm, any loss which cannot be set off against any other income of the firm shall be apportioned between the partners of the firm, and they...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »