Orissa Court October 1992 Judgments
Ramdas Gupta Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT184; 1993(I)OLR9
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant No. 2 (guarantor of the debtor) is appellant.2. Plaintiff-Bank advanced medium term loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- to defendant No. 1 on the basis of a written agreement executed by defendant No. 1 on hypothecation of vehicle where the rate of interest was stipulated as follows ;'3. The Borrower shall also pay interest at the rate of 2 per cent below the State Bank Advance Rate minimum 11 percent per annum rising and falling therewith calculated respectively on the daily balance of the amount due subject to enhancement as hereinafter provided.'Appellant guaranteed the loan by executing a document' where it was stated amongst others.'We the undersigned Ram Das Gupta S/o. late Seth Amilal hereby guarantee to the said Bank the payment on demand of all moneys at any time and from time to time hereafter due to the said Bank by the Borrower in respect of the said accommodation with interest thereon at the rate of Eleven per cent per annum from the date of demand and th...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Radha Kanta Nayak, S/O. Sri Rama Kanta Nayak Vs. State of Orissa a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(II)OLR543
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Date 30-10-1992-Though this matter was listed for admission, at the request and with the consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.2. Heard Mr. Nayak for the petitioner and learned counsel for State. While disposing of an application for bail, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak had instructed Sri Giridhari Singh, another Advocate of the local Bar to submit a written complaint against the petitioner which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge indicated was to be forwarded to the Chairman, State Bar Council, Orissa, Cuttack. The Course adopted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge appears to be unusual. He was dealing with an application for bail. Direction to another Advocate to submit a complaint against an Advocate whatever may be his conduct was not proper. Direction contained in the order dated 24-7-1992 to that effect is deleted. If learned Addl. Sessions Judge felt that any action was necessary against the Advocate who had filed the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Adam Tirky Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR265
L. Rath, J.1. This appeal from jail has been preferred assailing the conviction of the appellant Under Sections 457 and 376 IPC and sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment,for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more Under Section 376, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more Under Section 457, IPC with direction that both the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently.2. The appellant was charge-sheeted along with another Chhotu Mahanandia but the latter having absconded the appellant alone faced the trial on the allegation that at the midnight of 12-5-1986,four persons entered into the room where the victim lady PW 5 was sleeping, through the open space available in between the thatch and the height of the wall of the room and successively gang raped her. It is the prosecution case that the victim lady was st...
Tag this Judgment!Netrananda Sahu Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-28-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1272
ORDERD.M. Patnaik, J.1. The question for decision in this revision is, whether the conviction of the petitioner and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo R.I. for two months more, as awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Laxmipur, and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore, in appeal for an offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code shall be maintained.2. The petitioner, who was admittedly a salesman in the Kakiriguma Large Size Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited (for short, the 'Kakiriguma LAMPS') face trial in the court below for misappropriation of a total sum of Rs. 96,510.77 paise (vide F.I.R., Ext. 18) for the period 1978-79, 1980-81, 1981-82and 1982-83. It was alleged, in his capacity as the Secretary of the said LAMPS, he was entrusted with various consumers articles for the purpose of sale, transaction to different societies, but he could not account for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Lambodhar Nath Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-28-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT745; 1993CriLJ2505
ORDERD.M. Patnaik, J.1. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the legality of the confirming order of conviction and the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one week more for the offence under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (hereinafter to as the 'Act').2. Prosecution case is, on 29-9-1985 at about 2 p.m., P.W. 1, the Sub-Inspector of Excise along with P.W. 2, the Excise Constable, on suspicion detained the petitioner who was found carrying on his cycle 20 litres of illicit distilled liquor. He could not account for such possession. The liquid and the containers were seized and P.W. 1 carried on both hydrometer and litmus paper tests. On smelling the liquid he found that the same was illicit distilled liquor. After completing the inquiry he submitted prosecution report. The petitioner denied the prosecution case.3. Mrs. P. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that...
Tag this Judgment!Bimbadhar Senapati Vs. Prakash Kumar Senapati and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT739; II(1993)DMC153
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. Revisional order passed by Consolidation Commissioner under Section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Acq. 1972, directing recording of land register plot No. 1442 measuring Act, 0.33 decimals in the name of opp. party No. 1 is under challenge in this proceeding.1. Banambar and Birabar were two brothers. In a partition between them effected in the year 1959, the case plot fell in the share of Banambar. He died leaving behind his widow Basanta and minor adopted son Prakash (opp. party No. 1). In the land register prepared under Section 6(2) of the Act, Banambar and Birabar were shown as the land owners in respect of the said plot. The petitioner filed objection under Section 9(3) of the Act disputing the correctness of the entry in the land register on the ground that Basanta for self and as mother guardian of opp. party No. 1 sold the land in question in favour of the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 10-12-1...
Tag this Judgment!Malik Ram Bhoi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT40; 1993CriLJ984
A. Pasayat, J. 1. The judgment of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur is assailed by Malik Ram Bhoi (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). 2. Sans unnecessary details, the accusations which led to the trial of the accused are as follows: One Bipin Bihari Pradhan (hereinafter described as the 'deceased') lost his life for intervention in a family quarrel. Khenjad Khadia (P. W. 6) and his wife were quarrelling inside their house. The deceased who is brother of one Jagadish Pradhan, the informant (P.W. 5) went to the house of P.W. 6 and requested him and his wife not to quarrel with each other. The differences between them subsided, and while the deceased was coming back the accused came running and challenged the deceased as to why he had come there. Suddenly he gave a knife blow on the lower abdomen and receiving the injury the deceased ran on t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agency Marketing Co-operative Society L ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR881(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ' the Act' ), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cutlack Bench, Cuttack (in short, ' the Tribunal') :' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 11,59,027 under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 80P(2)(a), whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the profits and gains from each activity specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 80P should be separately considered for deduction from gross total'income ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right In holding that deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) should not be calculated on the adjusted total income from all activities men tioned in the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Bidulata Das Vs. Braja Behari Palit and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-22-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori86; 1993(I)OLR183
ORDERB.N. Dash, J. 1. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. 1908 ('the Code', for short) is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Cuttack confirming an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code refused to grant temporary injunction. 2. Late Brundaban Palit, the father of respondent No, 1 was originally the owner of the suit land measuring Ac. 8.12 decimal with a house standing thereon which forms part of current settlement plot No. H/54 measuring an area of Ac. Order 106 decimals under Khata No. 86 of mouza Baharnal in the town of Cuttack and on his death in 1969, the opposite parties succeeded to the same. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Bhagirath Das took the suit property on rent sometime in 1954 and during the period of his occupation H.R.C. Case No. 79 of 1984 was filed by the landlord (opposite party No. 1) for his eviction and no contest having been raised the proceeding was decided e...
Tag this Judgment!Pabitra Mohan Nayak Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR75
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioner's case is that being in personal agony, he tendered his resignation on 20-11-1980 to come into force with effect from 13-1-1981, as stated in Annexure-1. But then, having come over the agonising events with the efflux of time, which is the best healer, he withdrew the offer of resignation by letter dated 16-12-1980. But in the meantime the resignation offer had been accepted on 1-12-1980 and it is because of this, that the withdrawal was not conceded to. Feeling aggrieved, this petition has been filed.2. Shri Misra appearing for the opposite parties contends that the petitioner's offer of resignation having been accepted on 1-12-1980 and he having withdrawn the offer thereafter, he had lost his locus penitentiae to do so. To substantiate this submission, he refers to Raj Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 180. In that case, the incumbent who belonged to Indian Administrative Service, and was holding the post of Collector and District Magistrate, K...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »