Orissa Court September 1991 Judgments
Mst. Premalata Dora and anr. Vs. State of Orissa, Represented by the S ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR523
A. Pasayat, J.1. Though several contentions were raised in this writ application by the petitioners, we feel that dealing with one of them would suffice. The conclusion of the Member, Board of Revenue was to the effect that Premalata, widowed mother (petitioner No. 1) and her son Giridhari Dora (petitioner No. 2) constituted 'a family' under the provisions of Section 37 (b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act'). The conclusion of the Member, Board of Revenue is contrary to the view expressed by this Court in 50(1980) CLT 132 : Jaga alias Jagannath Naik and Ors. v. The State of Orissa and Anr. ; and 1989 (II) OLR 15: Suresh Mohanty v. Mst. Satyabhama Mohanty and Ors.. The language of Section 37(b) is crystal clear that a 'family' in relation to an individual means the individual, the husband or wife as the case may be, of such individual and their children, whether major or minor, but does not include a major married son who as such had separated by partition or othe...
Tag this Judgment!Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154
ORDERB.N. Dash, J.1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR466(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J. 1. On being moved by an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), this court had directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), to refer the following questions for adjudication :'(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was no evidence to show that the assessee had applied for change of the system of accounting from mercantile to cash in relation to interest from sticky loans in an account called 'Interest Suspense Account' and, therefore, it was not taxable and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the audit objection bearing No. 1186, dated June 20, 1976, could not form the basis for reopening the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The reference has been occasioned in the following background.3. The Orissa State Financial Corporation estab...
Tag this Judgment!Nilla Jagannadham Vs. State of Orissa Represented by Collector and ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: 1992(II)OLR15
P.C. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff in Title Suit No. 17 of 1990 of the Court of Subordinate Judga, Pariakhemundi is the petitioner in this, revision. The suit has been filed for recovery of certain properties which belonged to her parents. She filed an application Under Section 18-A of the Court-fees Act praying for exemption of court-fee as, according to her, she satisfies all the requirements of the said section. The learned trial Court rejected that application on the ground that her husband is an ex-military man and is getting Rs. 500/- per month. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application for review of the said order, which was registered as M. J. C. No. 40 of 1990. The ground for review was that her application Under Section 13-A of the Court-fees Act was rejected on irrelevant ground and the Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in rejecting the application. It was stated that there was sufficient cause for reconsideration of the matter by way of review....
Tag this Judgment!J. Gopal Rao Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: [1993]88STC488(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions were framed by this Court, and the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') was directed by order dated November 6, 1987, to refer them along with the statement of facts :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the determination of the liability to pay tax with effect from April 1, 1980, is bad in law without determining the date of start of business ?(2) Whether, the findings of the taxing authorities on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, are based on no evidence and also in violation of the principles of natural justice ?'2. The background facts are that the petitioner carries on business in grocery articles and was not registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'). Basing on a statement recorded on February 11, 1982, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, and demands including penalty under ...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Bhata Mishra and ors. Vs. Somanath Dakua
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1915; 1991(II)OLR547
J.M. Mahapatra, J.1. The petitioners, the employees of the N. A. C., Bellaguntha. District Ganjam, in this revision application have challenged the order dated 11-8-1986 of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagar in case ICC No. 1 32 of 1986 taking cognisance for offences under Secs. 447, 427 and 379 IPC.2. The sole opposite party, the complainant in the Court below had filed the complaint petition before the learned S. D. J. M. on the allegation that he had lawfully obtained settlement of a piece of land in the N. A. C. area, that petitioner No. 1 the Executive Officer of the N. A. C. issued a notice to him on 27-5-198b for demolition of the structure standing thereon, that he preferred an appeal before the A. D. M., Ganjam, that inspite of the patta shown to petitioner No. 1, all the petitioners under the direction of petitioner No. 1 demolished the structure on 9-6-1986. The opposite party is said to have approached the Bellaguntha out-post but as police took no action h...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bijayalaxmi Sahoo Vs. Smt. Sanjukta Prusty and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR530
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Judgment-debtor is the petitioner in this Civil Revision.2. Judgment-debtor is a tenant of a house belonging to deceased Gopal Sahu. She filed Title Suit No. 68 of 1986 in the 1st Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuttack against opposite parties as defendant Nos. 2 and 5 and 3 others who are all children of Gopal for declaration that she is a monthly tenant in respect of the house and is not evictable without due process of law. Her further prayer, was to restrain defendants from removing the roof of the house.3. Judgment-debtor filed an application for temporary injunction registered as Misc. Case No 79 of 1986 which was disposed of by the trial Court by order dated 2-8-1986. Relevant portion of the order is extracted below :'The opposite parties are restrained from evicting the petitioner by force. The petitioner is liable to be evicted by order of any competent Court. The petitioner is also directed to effect repair of the roof of the house which is in her occupation...
Tag this Judgment!Bipra Charan Patra Vs. the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. Represented ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR529
ORDER1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act filed this writ application seeking a direction to the opp. parties 1 and 2, the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. and its Divisional Manager at Potteru (I) Division to refund his security deposit. Admittedly the refund of the amount has been withheld by the corporation solely on the ground that the Corporation may be held liable for sales tax for the violation of the conditions of the ('D' forms submitted by the petitioner to the Corporation at the time of sale. The petitioner had submitted the 'D' forms in question at the time of purchase of timber by him from the Corporation and therefore did not pay sales tax on the transaction. It is Corporation's case that goods had not been sold in the State of Orissa but had been utilised for inter-State sale as observed in the Corporation's assessment by Sales Tax authorities. 2. The question for consideration is whether in the aforesaid circumstances any liability for tax...
Tag this Judgment!Kandula Prabhakar Rao Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT296; 1992(I)OLR522; [1993]88STC322(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following common question of law has been referred by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') to this Court for adjudication in these three cases.'Whether the Tribunal was correct in applying Section 19(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, to the facts of the present cases ?'2. The background facts are that the assessee was assessed to sales tax for the quarters ending December 31, 1974 and March 31, 1975 of the year 1974-75 and for the quarters ending June 30, 1975, September 30, 1975 and December 30, 1975 of the year 1975-76. The assessee was treated to be a transferee in terms of Section 19(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Undisputed position is that one P. Lakhman Rao had started business sometime prior to commencement of the business by the assessee in the same premises where the assessee carried on business. The assessee. purchased some stock of goods from P. Lakhman...
Tag this Judgment!Sanatan Mangal Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT208; 1991(II)OLR433
A.K. Padhi, J.1. Claiming to be a member of scheduled caste the petitioner had filed an application for issuance of a caste certificate as envisaged under the Orissa Caste Certificate (for S. C. and S. T.) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). As the same was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that he belongs to 'Niari' community, not included in the scheduled caste list as prescribed by the Presidential Order, 1950, he has approached this Court.2. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to 'Niari' community. Relying on the clarificatory letters of the Government, meaning of the 'Niari' as given in the Purnachandra Bhasakosh and a decision of this Court Mr. Das, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that 'Niari' community are by caste of'Kaibarta'or 'Keuta' which are synonymous with 'Dewars'. 'Dewar' is included in the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950. For such submission reliance is placed on Narayan Behera v. State of Orissa through Secretary...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »