Orissa Court September 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.
Krushna Chandra Bariki Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR504
A.K. Padhi, J.1. Claiming to be a member of Scheduled Caste, the petitioner filed an application before the competent authority as envisaged under the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rule, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). As the application of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to a Scheduled Caste community, be has approached this Court.2. Admittedly petitioner belongs to 'Radhi' community. Relying on the documents filed, Sri Misra for the petitioner submits that 'Radhis' are a class of 'Kaibarta' or 'Keuta' which is synonymus with 'Dewar'. 'Dewar' is included in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. in Narayan Behera v. State of Orissa through Secretary, Tribal and Welfare Department and Ors. (49 (1980) CLT 47), it has been decided that:'We have just indicated that according to Clause 2 of the Sche- duled Caste Order, the castes, races or tribes or parts...
Executive Officer, Baripada Municipality Vs. Mahesh Prasad Saha
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT856; 1992(I)OLR243
L. Rath. J. 1. The Municipality is the appellant assailing an acquittal in a prosecution under Section 385-A of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') of the respondent. The prosecution report was filed on 17-6-1983 alleging the respondent to have indulged in unauthorised construction without obtaining sanction of plan from the Municipality and in spite of having received the notice Ext. 4 issued on 2-4-1983 directing to stop further construction and to demolish the unauthorised construction, yet neither to have stopped the construction nor to have demolished the construction already made. It is the case of the Municipality that on receipt of Ext. 4 the respondent also addressed a letter Ext. 6 on 4-4-1983 intimating of having stopped construction and that he was taking steps to get the plan approved and to produce the same before the Executive Officer but that in spite of the same he carried on the construction and completed the roofing. The learned Magi...
Ashok Kumar Kar Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1991
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1123; 1992(I)OLR300
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this writ application the challenge is to the legality of the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1987 on 3-7-1987. The order dated 8-12-1986 passed by the Authorised Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Puri Division, Khurda whereby he had directed for confiscation of a jeep bearing registration No. OSP 19 along with accessories and timber, which were being transported in the jeep, was assailed in appeal.2. Mr. P. K. Misra, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that in view of the provisions of Section 56(2-a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal. For the sake of convenience. Section 56(2-a) is quoted below.'56. Seizure of property liable to confiscation :(1) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx (2-a) where an authorised officer seizes any forest produce under Sub-section (1) or where any such forest produce is produced before him under Sub-section (2) and h...
Sri Prabhudayal Agrawalla Vs. Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT171; 1991(II)OLR464; [1993]88STC473(Orissa)
A.K. Padhi, J. 1. Reference has been made to a larger Bench to consider the scope and ambit of Section 6(2) of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982, vis-a-vis, the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The former Act is hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act' and the latter as 'the Act'. In essence the dispute is when the taxable event is supply of eating materials in a restaurant, or eating house or in a place not being a restaurant, where such supply or service was for cash, deferred payment or valuable consideration for the period at any time on or after 7th day of September, 1978 and before 2nd February, 1983, in a given case, where the assessee had not collected tax from the buyer, whether he shall be exempted from tax in view of Section 6(2)(a) of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 or exigibility of tax shall be dependent on dominant object of the assessee while supplying articles of food for cash or deferred payment. Consequentially it has to be adjudi...
Krushna Chandra Patra Vs. Tanu Patra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1991
Reported in: II(1992)DMC20
L. Rath, J.1. The respondent who stood trial Under Sections 497 and 498IPC along with one Sukadeb Patra who had been charged Under Section 109 IPCat the instance of the appellant having been acquitted, this appeal has beenpreferred. The appellant filed the complaint alleging that he had married oneIchhabati Patra on 24-4-1977 and while they were living as husband and wife, shewas brought by Sukadeb Patra, her father, on 2-10-1978 and was not sent there-after to her marital home. The appellant attempted on some occasions to bringher back but however she was not sent by her father and instead was given inmarriage to the respondent on 15-2-1982. The appellant learning this tooksome time to collect evidence as to the marriage and filed the complainton 11-3-1982. During the trial the appellant was examined as PW-1 andthree other witnesses were also examined on his behalf. The learned Magistrateanalysing the evidence came to hold that Ichhabati had indeed been marriedto the appellant but eve...
Smt. Pravati Bastia Vs. Management of Choudwar College and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT316; 1992(I)OLR51
A. Pasayat, J.1. Man is a political animal, said Aristotle in Politics I. If that be so, is Rule 11(1) (f) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (in short 'the Rules') prohibiting the employees from being members of the political or communal party intra vires, questions the petitioner. Additionally it is submitted, merely because she contested election as independent candidate can she be termed a member of the political or communal party, to warrant action by opp. party No. 1--Institution (Management of Choudwar College).2. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as a lecturer in Education Department of the College in the year 1986. She was placed under suspension on 28-2-1990 on the allegation that by contesting the general election to the Orissa State Legislative Assembly from Athgarh Assembly Constituency, she committed a misconduct in terms of Rule 11(1)(f) of the Rul...
Rasiklal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1991
Reported in: (1992)99CTR(Ori)85; [1992]193ITR246(Orissa)
A. PASAYAT J., - In both the cases at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for adjudication by this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission paid by the assessee-firm to Sri Rasiklal P. Rathor (individual) was rightly disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The cases are disposed of by this common judgement.According to the Revenue, in terms of section 40 (b) of the Act, any payment of interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration made by the firm to any partner of the firm in case the assessee is a firm is not a permissible deduction while computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains' of business or profession.The undisputed factual position is that one Sri Rasiklal P. Rathor is a partner in the firm, M/s Rasiklal and Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'firm') representing his Hindu Undivided fam...
Bajranglal Agarwala Vs. Competent Authority and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR509
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The order of the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Munipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is challenged in this writ application, The said order of the Appellate Tribunal has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Competent Authority under the Act served a notice on the petitioner requiring the petitioner to disclose his source of income and assets out of which the petitioner has acquired the properties mentioned in the Schedule to the notice The Competent Authority has served the notice in the purported exercise of his power Under Section 6(1) of the Act. In the aforesaid notice, four items of property have been mentioned, namely, the house property situated on holding No. 120 in Ward No. 3 of Boudh Notified Area Council the assets of business carried on under the name and style of M/s. Bajrang Medical Stores situated a...
Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector C.E. and Cus. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC137; 1994(74)ELT802(Ori)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The notice issued to the petitioner No. 1 Company by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), annexed as Annexure-2, has been assailed by the petitioners in this writ application. By the said notice, the Petitioner-company has been called upon to show cause as to why a duty of central excise amounting to Rs. 5,76,180/- should not be paid by the petitioner on 540 metric tonnes of charge-chrome valued at Rs. 52,38,000/- at the rate of Rs. 9,700/- per metric tonne under Section 11A(1) of the Act and a duty of central excise amounting to Rs. 2,50,450/- should not be paid by the petitioner on 2,504.5 metric tonnes of charge-chrome slag valued at Rs. 25,04,500/- at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per metric tonne under said Section 11A(1) of the Act and further why a penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173(Q) of the 'Rules' for the period 1-4-1983 to 5-8-1983. Th...
The Management of Orissa Road Transport Company Limited Vs. the Workma ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR515
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 6-4-1989 passed in I.D. Case No. 33 of 1983, annexed as Annexure-2 and the award of the said Industrial Tribunal dated 17-3-1990, annexed as Annexure-3, are being challenged in this writ application by the Management.2. Opp party No. 1 was a Driver under the petitioner and on account of negligence, a major accident occurred. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and all opportunities were afforded to opp. party No. 1. Ultimately he was found guilty of the charges and in accordance with the Standing Orders, he was discharged from service. An application Under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') having been filed for approval of the action of discharge, the Tribunal accorded approval by order dated 31-12-1979, In I.D Misc. Case No. 16 of 1978. Thereafter, the workman raised a dispute and the Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal invoking power...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »