Orissa Court September 1992 Judgments
Biswanath Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Shyam Sundar Chowdhury and After Him ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR249
P.C. Misra, J.1. Facts : Widow of one branch whose husband died in 1912 (prior to 1937 Act) executed a Sevasamarpanpatra in favour of 3 persons of other branches in respect of her share of properties and also properties belonging to the deity-After describing the facts and findings of Courts below, it is held :The true notion of an undivided mitakshara family is that no individual member thereof can predict his share in the joint family properties while the family remains undivided as the shares of the cosharers are liable to fluctuation, depending upon the births and deaths of the family. Once the joint status is disrupted the share of the coparceners get defined, no matter whether actual division of the properties by metes and bounds is made pursuant thereto. Once the shares are defined either by agreement between the parties or otherwise the joint status gets severed. The parties may divide the properties by metes and bounds or they may continue to live together and enjoy the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Chaitanya Charan Jena Vs. the Tribal Development Co-operative Corporat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori76; 1993(I)OLR86
Hansaria, C.J.1. On a reference being made by a Division Bench on the question whether the ratio of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471: (1991 Lab IC 308) would apply to pending proceeding, the matter has come up before this Bench.2. The judgment in Ramzan Khan's case is of 20-11-1990. Subsequently, in S.P. Viswanathan v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 269 (decided on March 6, 1991) a Bench of two learned Judges held in a petition which had been directly filed under Article 32 of the Constitution that the decision in Ramzan Khan's case having prospective effect 'will not affect the orders passed prior to the date of rendering of the judgment (November 20, 1990) would be clear from paragraph 17 of the judgment'. It may be stated that to this decision, Sawant, J. was a party who was also a member of Ramzan Khan's Bench.3. Another judgment of a Division Bench in U.P. Anusuchit Jati Wittya Evam Wikas Nigam Ltd. v. Uma Shankar Seth (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4155 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarlal Verma and ors. Vs. Smt. Uma Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT621; 1993(I)OLR187
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. Petitioners and opposite parties are heirs of one Satyanarayan Verma and Krushna Chandra Sahoo respectively. Krushna Chandra initiated eviction proceeding bearing No. 82 of 19,76 against Satyanarayan from a shop room in Balu Bazar in the city of Cuttack Under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the same by Krushna Chandra. The House Rent Controller allowed the prayer for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement only. In appeal the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack confirmed the order of conviction on both the grounds. Being dissatisfied the heirs of Satyanarayan have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order of eviction.2. The shop room in question stands on 2 .decimals of Khasmahal land which forms part of Ac. 1,825 decimals of lease-hold area of deity Binod Bihari Thakur taken lease from the Khasmahal authorities by Registered lease deed dat...
Tag this Judgment!Sukumar Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT918; 1993CriLJ1354
B.N. Dash, J.1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 395, IPC and each is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.2. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is as follows:-- The informant Satyanarayan Panigrahi (P.W. 1) has his parents and three brothers namely, Laxminarayan, Braja Narayan and Purna Chandra and all of them were residing in a house with their family members in village Uluda, the spot, map of which is Ex. 13. On 3-6-1988, the marriage of Niharika, daughter of Laxminarayan took place and in connection with that marriage many close relatives of the informant had assembled. In the mid-night of 6/7-6-1986, while the informant was sleeping on the outer verandah of his house along with some other male members and the other family members and their relatives were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, one of the...
Tag this Judgment!Yakub Mahammed and ors. Vs. Revenue Officer-cum-tahasildar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori174
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These two applications uner Article 226 of the Constitution arise out of a ceiling surplus proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act.2. Petitioners are sons of Ibrahim. A suo motu proceeding was initiated against Ibrahim for determination of ceiling surplus land. Ibrahim pointed out that there was partition among him and his sons. Accepting the partition, Tahasildar dropped the proceeding. When petitioners came to know that notice has been served on their father Ibrahim to surrender the ceiling surplus lands on 31-12-1989, they made enquiry to find out that Tahasildar reopened the proceeding and without notice to petitioners, has finalised the proceeding disbelieving the Partition of 1954 on the ground that the deed is not registeredand in 1954 petitioners were minors. Accordingly, prayer has been made to quash the order dated 17-10-1976 in Annexure-3 series and notice dated 31-12-1988 (Annexure-4).3. Mr. D.P. Sahu, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners subm...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Amar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT826; (1993)115CTR(Ori)393; [1993]200ITR785(Orissa)
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. The valuation report, valuing the property of the petitioner, made by the Valuation Officer on a reference being made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, annexed as annexure-3 to the writ application is being challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the provisions of Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can have no application to any enquiry under the Income-tax Act, 1961, to find out the investment made by the assessee in the construction of a building.2. The petitioner is a registered firm and had constructed a hotel called 'Hotel Amar'. The construction of the hotel building started in the year 1981 and was completed in the year 1983. The investment made by the petitioner in different assessment years in constructing the hotel building was indicated by the petitioner and, ultimately, an assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act and the investment made was a...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramani Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: 2(1993)ACC322; 75(1993)CLT787
A. Pasayat, J.1. Though several points were urged in support of the appeal, I find that the only aspect which requires adjudication, is whether New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter described as the 'Insurance Company') is liable to indemnify the compensation awarded.2. A brief reference to the factual aspect is necessary for disposal of the appeal.On 26.11.1981 one Late Golakh Sahu lost his life on account of accident caused by a truck bearing registration No. OSS 971 belonging to Rajendra Kumar Mittal. A claim petition for Rs. 48,000/- was lodged by the dependants of the aforesaid Golakh Sahu, i.e. his widow, widow mother and four children. The Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (N.D.), Sambalpur (in short, the 'Tribunal')on evaluation of evidence, came to hold that the accident was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck and that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 42,000/-. The further question that received attention of the Tribunal was...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramakrishna Da ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ668; AIR1993Ori48
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. The Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company is in appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of Rs. 15,000/- passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Berhampur, in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the appellant.2. Respondent No, 1 in his application under Section 110A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 15,000/- alleged that on 1-12-1982 the truck owned by respondent No. 2 being driven in rash and negligent manner ran over his daughter aged 8 to 9 years causing her instantaneous death. The owner did not enter appearance after notice. The Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company filed written statement and contested the claim for compensation at the hearing. In his written statement while denying that the truck was being driven rashly or negligently, he contended that the accident occurred due to the own negligence of the girl who fell on backside of the vehicle without the truck dashing her. As to insuran...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Santanu Kumar Das and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori73; 75(1993)CLT119
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. In this batch of writ applications the constitutional validity of the amended provisions of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder has been challenged.2. Under the pre-amended law the owners of the vehicles were required to pay tax and obtain tax token every year which resulted in wastage of time as well as incurring extra expenditure by making journey to the Regional Transport Offices. Simultaneously with the increasing number of vehicles the work load in the offices of the Regional Transport Officers keeps increasing requiring more and more of supporting staff to attend to the work. In a meeting of the Transport Ministers held at New Delhi in April, 1986, it was suggested that payment of one time tax should be introduced in respect of personalised vehicles. In accordance with this decision and to achieve object of lessoning harassment of the vehicle owners as well as to reduce the work load in the taxing offices, Government of...
Tag this Judgment!Dillip Behera and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT913; 1993(I)OLR33
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 17-2-1990 taking cognizance of the offence Under Section 436/34, IPC and issuing summons to the accused persons is being challenged in this application invoking the jurisdiction of this Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The informant gave a written report on 22-12-1989 at 7 p.m. which was treated as FIR alleging therein that the petitioners came in a Car and threatened him to murder at the point of a knife and thereafter set fire to his stall and then left the place with the Car. On the basis of the said FIR police registered a case and started investigation. On completion of investigation final report was submitted on 15-12-1989. The Magistrate after receiving the final report passed order on 20-1-1990 to issue notice to the informant to file any protest petition. Thereafter the case records were produced on 17-2-1990. Even though no protest petition had been filed by the informant, the Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »