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.
Ladi Vyakuntam and ors. Vs. Gumudi Chittibabu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-20-1992
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT776; 1992(II)OLR157
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. This case has been filed for quashing the criminal proceeding in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Parlakhemundi in ICC Case No. 17 of 1988 Under Section 199 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Petitioner No. 1 and the opp. party are the partners of 'Jyoti Rice and Flour Mill'. Since they had dispute relating to their partnership business, the matter was referred to a body of Arbitrators consisting of 4 persons, two having been nominated by each party. There was also an umpire appointed by the parties. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the Arbitrators appointed by the opp. party and petitioner No. 4 is the Arbitrator appointed by petitioner No. 1. The other Arbitrator is not a party to the case as no proceeding has been initiated against him.2. In the complaint petition filed by the opp. party, it was alleged that the preset petitioners 2, 3 and 4 in order to injure the complainant, knowing fully well that ...
Gurudev Singh Rai Vs. Authorised Officer-cum-asst. Conservator of Fore ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ori287; 76(1993)CLT671; 1992(I)OLR305
Hansaria, C.J.1. Tersely put, we have been called upon in this case to decide 'whether the judiciary can also legislate; if so, when and to what extent?' The question as posed above may sound to many ears as novel, strange and a clear attempt to usrup the power of the legislature. But from what is being stated later, it would appear that it is not so.2. The aforesaid question, however, requires our examination because in this case a truck found involved in committing a forest offence was ordered to be confiscated by the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, which order having been afirmed in appeal, has been challenged in this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we felt that on the facts of the case, confiscation of the truck is not merited and so we suggested that in lieu of confiscation we propose to impose fine. This suggestion was given keeping in view the judgments of this Court rendered in O.J.C. No. 3105 of 1988 (Narendra Singh v. Auth...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Senapati and Partners
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR507(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 ') :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest amount of Rs. 51,317 was not liable to tax?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,12,124 out of the award amount for execution of work of Rs. 1,46,101 was liable to tax during the assessment year under consideration ?'2. The controversy centres round the taxability of certain amounts received by Messrs. Senapati and Partners (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') for execution of contract works executed by it and the interest received on the basis of an arbitration award.3. The background facts as revealed from the statement of the case...
Gangpur Labour Union Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT168; (1993)ILLJ828Ori
Rath, J. 1. The sole question urged in this case is whether an Industrial Tribunal is entitled to drop a proceeding under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as having become infructuous since the original dispute, during the pendency of which the contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act is complained of, ends in a no-dispute award. The short facts are that Industrial Dispute Case. No. 5 of 1984 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal between the management (Opposite Party 2) and the petitioner-union to decide as regards the notice of change issued on February 10, 1984 given under Section 9-A of the Act by management, whether the effect of such no-lice was to reduce the wages of the workmen. During the pendency of the proceeding the alleged contravention was made by the management of reduction of the rate of wages, increase in the workload, payment to each piece-rated worker and each gang leader at the rate of Rs. 1...
S. Ramamurty Das and Partners Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT202; [1992]197ITR344(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. At the instance of Messrs. S. Ramamurty Das and Partners (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee'), the following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench 'A', camp at Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act ').' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to pass the order dated March 30, 1979, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and so his order is not sustainable in the eye of law ?'2. The background facts as indicated by the Tribunal in the statement of the case drawn up by it are as follows :The assessee-firm was carrying on the business of executing civil contract works. It submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1974-75 on December 31, 1974, disclosing an income of Rs. 1,77,083, accompanied by a statement showing ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Richram Dharmasala Trust Estate
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR132(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. Since both the references made under Section 250(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), involve common points, they arc disposed of by this judgment which shall govern both.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for adjudication :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income lax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing io compute the income from property as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and then allow further maintenance expenses of dharmasala in order to arrive at the net taxable income of the assessee?'3. The background facts, as indicated in the statement of case drawn up by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), are as follows :For the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, Richaram Dharmasala Trust Estate (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') filed its returns of income. The Assessing Officer, while accepting...
Biraj Mohan Biswal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR465(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. Since both the reference applications are interlinked, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. At the instance of Shri Biraj Mohan Biswal (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessee'), the following questions have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal').' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was in fact the owner of the house at Dolmundai, Cuttack, standing in the names of his two minor sons ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the actual title to the house property in question vests in the assessee's sons and income therefrom would still be liable to be added in the hands of the assessee?'3. The facts as revealed from th...
A.S. Sandhu and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: [1992]196ITR323(Orissa)
ORDER--Question raised before nor adjudicated upon by Tribunal--Reference under s. 256(1) not permissible.HELD :A reference under s. 256(1) is permissible where any question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal passed under s. 254 .Since the question was neither pleaded nor adjudicated, it does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal.Income Tax Act 1961 s.256(1) ...
State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Vs. Umakanta Mohanty and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-11-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori9
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff Bank is appellant against dismissal of the suit for recovery of loan to defendant No. 1 as barred by limitation.2. It is not in dispute that defendant No. 1 took loan of Rs. 13,500/- from the plaintiff Bank on 15-5-1970. Defendant No. 2 was the surety for such loan. It was stipulated that loan would be paid by instalments since it was a medium term loan advanced to defendant No. 1 for purchase of a power tiller with accessories.3. Case of plaintiff is that interest was payable quarterly on or before 14th August, November, February and May each year. First payment was to commence from 14-8-1970. Loan with this stipulation was guarded by defendant No. 2. On 15-5-1970, defendant No. 1 hypothecated the power tiller with accessories and defendant No. 2 joined as guarantor. When defendant No. 1 failed to repay the term loan as stipulated and defaulted, plaintiff issued registered notices to both the defendants. Despite notice payment was not made. Hence taking ...
Miss. K.T. Sulochana Nair Vs. Managing Director, Orissa State Financia ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-11-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ori157; [1994]79CompCas467(Orissa)
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in the present writ application is whether the right conferred to the Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') extends over the property mortgaged with the Corporationby a guarantor or not. This question arises under the following circumstances :-- The petitioner had mortgaged her property for securing a term loan that had been granted by the Corporation in favour of opposite party No. 4 for purchase of a vehicle bearing Registration No. 1267. As the loanee did not pay up the instalment dues, the Corporation served the notice on the petitioner under Annexure-7 calling upon her to clear the demanded dues with interest thereon within fifteen days from the date of the issue of the letter failing which the properties mortgaged by the petitioner in favour of opposite party No. 4 should be taken over under Section 29 of the Act. The petitioner aver...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »