Orissa Court January 1993 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.
Nanda Kishore Misra Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-11-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1504; 1993(I)OLR257
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. Personal liberty was so much cherished by the founding fathers that thay made it a fundamental right which has almost been thrown to the winds in th3 presant case, inasmuch as one Amarjit, aged about 18 years, had been hand-cuffed and put in chains while he was hospitalised and was in the Surgery Ward of S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. The Apex Court, as the protector of fundamental rights, ever since 1978, in which year Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1675 saw the light of the day, has shown so much of averseness to hand-cuffing that Justice Krishna Iyer had to unfold the entire jurisprudence on the subject by taking pains in writing a lengthy judgment by pin-pointing the circumstances under which handcuffing can be said to be not violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution. The judgment of Krishna lyer, J. was on the subject of bar-fetters put on a person while in prison. What was said in that regard has been applied to hand-cu...
State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Janamohan Das and Etc. Etc.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Ori180; 75(1993)CLT352
Hansaria, C.J.1. The mighty says to the meek that you cannot command me to act; I shall act if f like, I shall not act if I choose not to act. The meek says that I possess the strength of law to give you the command; the law, which is no respector of person and which does not allow anybody to rise so high as to be above it. This could be the scenario if what has been submitted by Shri Patnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the State, were to be accepted by us fully.2. In the background of the present case, the point involved may be pithily put, on our going whole hog with Shri Patnaik, as to whether the Presiding Officer of a small munsifi in a small hamlet of Orissa (say, Nowrangpur in the district of Koraput) can call upon the all powerful Prime Minister of India to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, as visualised by Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') (hereinafter referred to as the 'judicial inquiry'), if the small Munsiff be of the view that any ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Belpahar Refractories Private Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR128(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. These two reference applications are interlinked since they relate to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, involving a common dispute. On being moved by the Revenue by applications 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 question for opinion :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the claim of the assessee for depreciation on scientific research and development equipment?'2. Messrs. Belpahar Refractories Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), filed its return of income for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. During the said assessment years, it claimed depreciation at the rate of ten per cent. on research and development equipment valued at Rs. 11,16,404 and Rs. 10,73,826, respectively. The Income-tax Officer, War...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gouri Shankar Agarwalla
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-1993
Reported in: [1993]201ITR550(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short, ' the Tribunal'), has referred the following question to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), for opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the Explanation to Section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the capital gain arising out of sale of agricultural land within the municipal town of Puri would be exempt as income from agriculture?'2. The background facts as indicated in the statement of case are as follows :For the assessment year 1982-83, Gouri Shankar Agarwalla (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessee ') filed his return of income in the status of an individual. The net income was indicated to be Rs. 10,212.Though the assessee had filed a return showing his income to be below the taxable limit, from the documents filed, the Income-tax Officer was of the view that income...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manorama Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1993
Reported in: II(1993)ACC10; 1993ACJ930; [1994(68)FLR1244]; (1993)IILLJ332Ori
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Insurer is the appellant in this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act').2. When notice of the appeal in limitation matter was sent to the claiment-respondent, she entered appearance and filed an application to direct the appellant to deposit the awarded amount and to permit her to withdraw the same. In order that the appeal can be finally disposed of if the records of the claim proceeding are called for, direction was issued to that effect and records have been received. With consent of learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for the insurer, question of limitation of the appeal, deposit of the amount payable by appellant and merit of the appeal were heard. It is agreed that in case delay is condoned and appeal is held to be entertainable without deposit as required under Section 30(1), Third Proviso of the Act, appeal can be admitted and heard on merits without notice to the owner respo...
State of Orissa Vs. Ganapati Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1993
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT337; 1993(I)OLR130
ORDERThe Chief Justice1. A suo motu proceeding was started on coming to the notice of this Court that a person accused of an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinaftar, 'the Act') had been released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 138/92 in exercise of power Under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code by relying on a decision of this Court in Bidyadhar Dalai v. State, (1992) 5 OCR 31, in which this Court in exercise of power Under Section 482, Cr PC (which power is not available to a Sessions Judge1) had quashed the detention, because of which the requirements of Section 37 of the Act were not borne in mind. That judgment made it clear in paragraph 15 that the accused persons were not being released on bail in exercise of power Under Section 439, Cr PC. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did so without adverting to the requirements of Section 37 of the Act, which appeared prima facie to be illegal,.2. Shri Panigrahi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›