Orissa Court February 1992 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.
Pankaj Mahakud @ Pankaj Matari Vs. Smt. Tara Mahakud
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ori199; 74(1992)CLT75
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Direction for Civil imprisonment after arrest in an execution proceeding of decree for money is grievance of judgment-debtor in this Civil Revision.2. Main ground of attack by Mr. R. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for petitioner is that judgment-debtor having no means to pay direction is in violation of Section 51, C.P.C.3. Decree-holder is wife of judgment-debtor. Satisfying the pre-conditions, she obtained decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. Judgment-debtor not having paid the same, she applied for execution of the decree by detention in Civil prison unless the decretal amount is paid. Despite valid service of notice, judgment-debtor not having appeared to raise objection as provided in Section 47, C.P.C. on 27-4-1989, order was passed to issue warrant of arrest for which requisites had been filed. Long four months after, Nazir returned the same unexecuted with report that Munda cheque is not available. It was directed to be reissued. O...
Kanduni Dei and ors. Vs. Ananta Charan Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR491
A. Pasayat, J. 1. During pendency of this revision application filed by petitioners, eleven in number, an application under Section, 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') was filed for acceptance of additional evidence. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party to the application.2. Background facts in which the revision came to be filed before this Court are to the following effect.The opposite party herein filed a complaint inter alia on the ground that his deceased father had purchased 62 decimals of land in plot No. 1403 of khata No. 204 in the year 1964 from one Rama Chandra Naik, his father and after him, he was in peaceful possession of the same. In the year 1984 he had raised various varieties of paddy on the disputed land. On 21-11-1984 the accused persons cut and removed the unripe crop notwithstanding protest by the opposite party complainant.The accused persons took the plea that the disputed land was in cultivating possession of p...
Usharani Rout and anr. Vs. Surendra Pradhan @ Rout
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR488
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Maintainability of an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') in respect of an order passed by the District Judge, exercising power under the said section is the pivotal issue. Petitioners in this revision application have assailed correctness of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack. By the impugned order the prayer for revision of an order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack refusing prayer for amendment was accepted.2. Mr. J. K. Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the revision application under Section 115 of the Code. Mr. S. K. Nayak learned counsel appearing for petitioners has, however, submitted that there is no bar in entertaining an application for revision against the revisional order passed by the (earned District Judge; Reference in this context is made to Section 115(1) of the ...
Cuttack Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT412; [1992]196ITR407(Orissa)
A. Pasayat J.1. 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, Cuttack Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), for adjudication ;'(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is a mutual concern ? (2) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the purported income from the house property was not available to be set off against the losses incurred by the club ?' 2. The background facts as depicted in the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal are to the following effect.3. Cuttack Club Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), a limited company, was incorporated to take over the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile unincorporated association known as the Cuttack Club, with the object, inter alia, to offer to its members all the usual privileges, advantages, conveniences and accommodation of a club. The memorandum of...
Trilochan Soren Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(II)OLR195
L. Rath, J.1. This is an application Under Section 482 from jail seeking the direction for the sentences passed against the petitioner to run concurrently instead of consecutively as had been directed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, in Sessions Trial No. 45/42-K of 1981. The petitioner was made to stand trial Under Sections 366, 376 and 379 IPC and having been found guilty, was convicted and was sentenced Under Section 366 IPC to five years' R. I. and pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R. I. for three months, Under Section 376 IPC to R. I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R. I. for three months, and Under Section 379 IPC to R. I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-in default to undergo R. I. for six months. Out of the fine amounts, if realised, a sum of Rs. 1000/- was directed to be paid to PW 4 as compensation. The learned Judge also directed the sentences to run consecutively.2. Such direction for consecutive running of the sentences is on t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Industrial Promotion and Investment Cor ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: (1992)103CTR(Ori)222; [1993]199ITR761(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J. 1. On being moved by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions to this court : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in modifying the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the total income on which deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be computed must be calculated before deducting relief allowable under Section 36(1)(viii) ?' 2. The background facts as culled out from the statement of the case are to the following effect : M/s. Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited (hereinafter referre...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Saw Mill
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR553(Orissa)
ORDER--Tribunal noticed difference in views among High Courts--However decided in favour of the assessee--Not justified--Matter remanded for disposal on merits.HELD :Noticing that several High Courts were having different views on the self-same question, it was held by the Tribunal that the order is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. J. K. Hosiery Factory (1986) 2159 ITR 85 (SC), and held that two interpretations being possible, the interpretation that is favourable to the assessee was to be adopted. The Tribunal thus did not decide the case on merits and only noticing the cleavage of judicial opinion, decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal should decide the case on merits taking into consideration diverse views and arrive at a decision on its own.APPLICATION :Also to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.254 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarat Ch. Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: [1992]195ITR364(Orissa)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court under Section 25G(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, in the facts and on the circumstances of the' case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the assessee's claim of expenditure to the extent of 40% of the incentive bonus received and included in the salary income ?'2. The assessee is an officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He filed his return for the assessment year 1983-84 showing Rs. 18,844 as gross salary. But the Assessing Officer found from the certificate issued by the employer that the gross salary was Rs. 39,285. The assessee explained the situation by stating that the aforesaid sum included Rs. 9,720 as additional conveyance allowance and a sum of Rs. 11,708 towards incentive bonus for securing new business. He claimed it to be h...
Damodar Sahu Vs. Kulamani Behera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR73
L. Rath, J.1. This petition is directed against the cognizance taken by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri, Under Section 436, IPC against the petitioner. The short facts are that the opposite party who has not appeared in spite of notice, had lodged an infomation in the Pipili Police Station of the petitioner and 10 others having committed offences Under Sections 148, 427 and 436 read with Section 149, IPC inasmuch as they, armed with deadly weapons, had entered his land, cut down a number of trees and had set fire to the house. After investigation the police submitted final report on 1-7-1987 which was accepted by the learned Magistrate on 30-8-1987. Thereafter the opposite party filed a complaint on 15-11-1987 against the petitioner and twelve others. The complaint was registered as ICC Case No. 191 of 1987. After initial statement of the petitioner was recorded, the learned Magistrate on perusal of the case diary and police report directed the opposite party to pr...
Managing Committee, Majhipada M.E. School Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR447
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. An important question relating to the security of service of teachers of aided schools is involved in the present case. The importance of the subject-matter itself calls for a cautious approach by us. A feeling of security of service being necessary for drawing the best out of men, a Court cannot be a party which would shake this faith of teachers whose contribution is also material for the progress of a nation as they build the future citizens of a country.2. We have opened the judgment with the above thoughts, because we have been called upon in the present case to decide whether the termination of the service of opp. party No. 6, Rasananda Lenka, who was serving at the relevant time as the Headmaster of Majhipada M.E. School, was in accordance with law or not.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Rasananda had been first appointed in the school as an Assistant Teacher on 1-7-1983 temporarily, but he continued to serve as such till he was appointed a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »