Orissa Court August 1992 Judgments
Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Rourk ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori141; 76(1993)CLT655
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner's application under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'Code') having been rejected, this applicatidn under Section 115 of the Code has been filed.2. Facts situation is as follows:Opposite party as plaintiff has filed Money Suit No. 152 of 1988 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Rourkela for realisation of Rs. 2,42,000/- with pendente lite and future interest against the petitioner who is defendant therein. Written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendant on 28-9-1980. Subsequently, ah application under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code was filed by it for permission to file additional written statement. The grounds indicated in support of the application were that some relevant facts were left out and could not be mentioned in the written statement, due to non-availability of certain relevant documents in the office of the defendant. It was submitted that facts and submissions contained in the additional writte...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Sitamani Sahoo.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Ori)451
S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. :This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of the Revenue. Following questions have been referred to this Court by the Tribunal for the opinion of the Court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the wife of the Karta was competent to enter into a partnership in her representative capacity for and on behalf of the HUF on retirement of the Karta form the partnership business ?(2) Whether, on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that salary income of the assessees husband was not be included in the income of the assessee under s. 64(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. Assessee is wife of Paramananda who was a member in partnership firm styled as M/s. Sahoo representing his undivided family in the partnership. On reconstitution of the firm w.e.f. 1st January, 1978, Paramananda retired and in his place Sitamani, his wife was inducted into partnershi...
Tag this Judgment!Nuhura Nayak and anr. Vs. Krushna Chandra Nayak
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2465; 1992(II)OLR296
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. A learned single Judge has referred for decision by a larger Bench the question as to whether, while examining a matter Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short), a receiver can be appointed, when pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate in a proceeding Under Section 145, Cr. P. C, possession of the land has been delivered to the person in whose favour the proceeding has terminated. The reference owes its origin to the fact that another learned single Judge of this Court in Markanda v. Balaram, 1990 (I) OLR 58, held that a receiver can be appointed by the High Court while in seisin of the matter Under Section 482, Cr. P. C, though the same power should be exercised very sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, only to do real and substantial justice. The learned single Judge before whom the present revision came, however, noted a number of decisions rendered by other High Courts of the country, the view taken in which app...
Tag this Judgment!Panchu Parida Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ953
ORDERA. Pasayat, J. 1. Judgment of conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the 'IPC') and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment as awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandapara (in short, the 'JMFC') and affirmation thereof in appeal by learned Sessions Judge, Puri, form the subject-matter of challenge in this revision application. 2. The petitioner stood charged for commission of offences punishable u/Sections 341 / 354/323, IPC. The prosecution case is that on 23-9-1984 morning the petitioner outraged the modesty of one Bhaskar Dei (P.W. 3) in the vegetable field of Banamali Pradhan, the informant. Bhaskar Dei is claimed to be the sole witness to the occurrence being the victim herself. According to her, while she was plucking vegetables, the petitioner came from her back side and squeezed her breast and attempted to commit rape on her. She protested and tried to free herself from the clutches of the petitioner who was trying to ta...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaisingh Nayak and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2812
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal from the Sub-Jail, Jaypore, Koraput, eight persons, each one of them hereinafter described as the 'accused', question the legality of their conviction made and sentence awarded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaypore The accused persons faced their trial being charged for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the 'IPC') on the allegation of intentionally causing death of Padmasai Suna (hereinafter described as the 'deceased') by assaulting him by various weapons in furtherance of their common intention. The accused persons were found guilty under Section 302/34, IPC, convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, prosecution case is as follows:On 15-6-1987 in the morning at village Tihiliguda under Papadahandi police station, the deceased and his brother Dhansai Suna, the informant (P.W. 3) were sowing paddy seedlings in front of their house. After...
Tag this Judgment!Khageswar Khatua Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-18-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2374; 1993(I)OLR37
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal from the Circle Jail, Cuttack Khageswar Khatua (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question the legality of his conviction for an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short,'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the teamed Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur.2. Adumbrated in brief, the prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as follows :The accused and his wife Hagori Dei (hereinafter described as the 'deceased)' were residing in village Kharadi separately from other villagers, as their marriage was not approved by the villagers. The deceased was a widow before she married the accused. Therefore, the villagers took exception to such marriage. On the night of 10-10-1986 there was exchange of hot words between the accused and the deceased. The latter abused the former in filthy language and told him that he should have sexual intercourse with his mother and sister if he wanted it. Be...
Tag this Judgment!Turuku Budha Karkaria Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-18-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT781; 1994CriLJ552
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal from the district Jail, Koraput, Turuku Budha Karkaria (hereinafter described as the 'deceased' (accused?)) calls in question his conviction under Sections 302, 404 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. No separate sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 404 and 201, IPC was imposed.2. Stated in brief, the prosecution case is that one Culuma Naikani (hereinafter described as the 'deceased') was a resident of village Bhatanagapadar. Sanurjaya Naik (P.W. 15) is the husband while Bhima Naik (P.W. 7) is the son of the deceased. A weekly market is held on Mondays at Ambadola which is nearby village of the deceased. On 21-10-1985 which was a Monday, the deceased went to the market wearing some gold and silver ornaments, and carrying a basket and some cash. Her husband and son who were eng...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanath Naik and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT711; 1995CriLJ2255
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal the conviction under Section 302, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the 'I.P.C.) and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur has been questioned. The three appellants (hereinafter described as the 'accused') faced trial being charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C.2. The background facts as depicted by the prosecution are to the following effect:On 14-1-1985 at about 8.00 A. M. Basu Naik (hereinafter described as the 'deceased') had been to a place called Dandamari Salapa Bosa near village Koihuru along with the accused persons to take 'Salapa,' a locally manufactured intoxicant. At that place, accused Ramanath demanded his dues from the deceased in respect of certain arrears. The deceased told him that since he had no money then, he would pay later. There was exchange, of some hot words between the deceased and accused Ramanath and the latter asked t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsingh Dharua and anr. Vs. Lab Jhankar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR399
L. Rath, J.1. The petitioners who are brothers of opp. party No. 1 are assailing the orders passed by the authorities under the Orissa Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to settle the lands pertaining to the village office of Jhankar with opp. party No. 1. in short their case is that their father Narad Dharua and the Jhankar of the village and that the lands in question were held by him. The village office was abolished during the lifetime of Narada and hence after his death the lands were liable to be settled with all his sons as co-sharers. Their claim was negatived by the authorities under the Act holding that in 1958 the opp. party No. 1 was appointed by issue of a Sanand as the Gumasta Jhankar specifically settling the lands in question as his remuneration and that being so, the lands were to be settled with him. The questions raised by Mr. S. S. Das are that Narada being the Jhankar and he having not been noticed under the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Purusottam Das Agarwal and Ors. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corpora ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-12-1992
Reported in: 1993(II)OLR500
L. Rath, J.1. The question raised in this case is regarding the jurisdiction of the S. D. J. M., Bhubaneswar to entertain a complaint at the instance of the opposite party, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its Regional Director, alleging an offence to been committed by the petitioner Under Section 85 (a) and (e) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (for brevity 'the Act') at Rourkela. The prosecution report had been filed alleging the offence to have been committed because of non-payment of the contribution and non- submission of returns. The learned S. D. J. M. took cognizance of the offence taking the view that since returns were to be submitted at the office of the Corporation at Bhubaneswar and the payments were also due to the Corporation, the offence was committed at Bhubaneswar where the office of the Corporation situates and hence he had jurisdiction to try the offence under the provisions of Sacs. 177 and 178, Cr PC After the order was passed taking cognizan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »