Orissa Court February 1993 Judgments
Bidyadhar Roul Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-10-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ori156; 76(1993)CLT475
A.K. Padhi, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit is for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession in respect of the suit land and for permanent injunction with further prayer to declare that the order of eviction dated 9/10-8-1982 passed by defendant No. 2 in O.P.P. Case No. 9 of 1975 is illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, inoperative and unenforceable in law.2. In the plaint it has been averred that the suit land belonged to the Government which was a low land wherein water was accumulating. Plaintiff, a landless person, in or about 1944 possessed the suit land by filling up the watery low land and improved it by spending a huge amount and occupied the same by constructing a house thereon. In view of the long possession of the plaintiff, the suit land had also been recorded in his favour in the settlement records. The suit land is neither required for any developmental purpose or any other purpose of the Government. In the month of April, 1975 defendant No. 2 iss...
Tag this Judgment!Kalinga Studios Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and or ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-10-1993
Reported in: 76(1993)CLT302; (1994)IILLJ108Ori; 1993(I)OLR559
ORDERB.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. Shri S.B. Nanda, a leading labour lawyer of the State, wanted to appear on behalf of the management of M/s. Kalinga Studios Ltd., the petitioner, as an 'officer' of the Utkal Chamber of Commerce and Industries Ltd., and the prayer having been refused by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, this application has been filed stating that the petitioner was entitled to be represented by Shri Nanda because of what has been stated in Section 36(2)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, 'the Act').2. There is no dispute that the aforesaid provision allows an officer of an association of employers, of which he is a member, to represent the employer in any proceeding under the Act. The only other relevant provision, which is necessary to be noted, is Sub-section (4) of Section 36, which has stated that in any proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner wit...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. R.C. Rath Vs. the Union Government of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-10-1993
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR491
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff is appellant against dismissal of the suit relating to enhancement of pension and payment of arrears.2. Plaintiff was a Doctor in provincial service. He wa9 recruited to Military Service and was a Subedar. While he was in military service he was posted in the field in the Second World War. By enemy shelling, he sustained injury for which one of his legs was computed. He was taken as a Prisoner of War. Later he was rescued. Thereafter, in the year 1946,the nature of disability was examined by Medical Board which found that he was disabled to the extent of 80 % Central Government being of the opinion that the disability is 70% but military service was less than ten years for which he was not entitled any pension. However, he was granted pension of above Rs. 33/- and less than Rs. 30/- per month, since plaintiff was disabled in course of military service on account of amputation of his leg. After being discharged from military service, plaintiff was appointe...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madhab Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-10-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ890
A. Pasayat, J.1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer') calls in question the legality of the judgment passed by the Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri (in short, 'the Tribunal') holding it liable to pay the compensation awarded in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') in this appeal. The appeal has been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (referred to as 'the old Act' hereinafter).2. A brief reference to the factual position is necessary for disposal of this appeal. One Basudev Das (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was an ice-cream seller, who lost his life in an accident wherein an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. ORP 9530 was involved. Though the accident took place on 16.10.1978 the deceased breathed his last on 27.10.1978. The parents of the deceased (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) lodged a claim for compensation against Balaram Das (hereinafter referred to as 'the ins...
Tag this Judgment!Mulla Md. Abdul Wahid Vs. Abdul Rahim and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: II(1993)ACC623; 1994ACJ348; 1993(I)OLR569
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This appeal is against the decision of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and claimant is the appellant.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award compensation more than the amount claimed by the claimant. The answer to the aforesaid question depends upon a true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').3. The case of the claimant is that he was going in the bus bearing registration number ORB 2520 as its Conductor on 27-2-1980. The said vehicle went off the road and capsized at village Sarang near Soro at about 11.20 A. M. On account of such accident the left leg and the hand of the claimant got fractured and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The claimant was then shifted to the hospital at Bhadrak and from there he was shifted to the S....
Tag this Judgment!Satrughana Mohanty and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: 76(1993)CLT205; 1993(II)OLR280
A.K. Padhi, J.1. The disputed properties measuring an area of A. O. 43 decs. under khata No. 74. plot No. 726 situated at Sunapal Mouza-Baramba recorded in the name of deity Sri Sri Kamana Thakurani was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by State of Orissa for establishment of a sugar factory.2. Award was passed Under Section 11 of the Act. Petitioners filed application for apportionment of the awarded amount. Collector referred the matter Under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine as to who is entitled to receive the compensation amount of Rs. 5,698/- awarded by the Collector Under Section 11 of the Act, which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 41 of 1987.3. Learned trial Court on entering into the reference, issued notices to the claimants, All the claimants appeared and filed their respective claim petitions, and adduced evidence, both documentary and oral to prove their respective cases. The Tahasildar-cum-Re...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parbati Mohanta and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: II(1993)ACC711; 1993ACJ550; 76(1993)CLT495
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Grievance of insurer appellant is that its vested right of appeal is circumscribed on account of the defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter which should be ignored.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the provision of Section 173(1), first proviso, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is not applicable and Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which has been repealed would determine the question.3. Section 173 of the Act reads as follows:173. Appeals.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court:Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner d...
Tag this Judgment!Janardhan Mohapatra Vs. Saroj Kumar Choudhury
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: 76(1993)CLT343; [1994]79CompCas821(Orissa); 1993CriLJ1751
S. C. Mohapatra, J.1. The accused is the petitioner in this application invoking the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash cognizance taken against him.2. The accused issued a cheque in favour of the complainant on August 24, 1991, which the complainant deposited for collection in his account. The bank to which it was sent for collection did not honour the cheque on the ground that there is no sufficient fund available in the account of the accused. This fact was intimated to the complainant on August 28, 1991. The complainant thereafter called upon the accused to pay the amount which was received by the accused on September 20, 1991. No payment having been made by the accused, a complaint was filed in February, 1991, alleging that the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial court having taken cognizance of the offence and having directed issue of process against the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prathi Hardware Stores
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR641(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. On being moved by the Revenue by an application 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 to this court for opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The reference relates to Messrs. Prathi Hardware Stores (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee').2. The background facts as culled out from the statement of case are as follows :The assessee is a partnership firm deriving income from the sale of hardware goods and paints. For the assessment year 1983-84, relating to the accounting year ending on December 31, 1982, the assessee filed a return of income on July 11, 1983, showing a total income of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Industries Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Ori)88; [1993]203ITR449(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. On being moved by an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), this court had directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, 'the Tribunal'), to refer the following question for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the production bonus and maintenance bonus amounting to Rs. 1,96,299 under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was paid over and above the limits of the statutory bonus as prescribed under Section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Pursuant to the direction, a statement of case has been drawn up and the aforesaid question has been referred by the Tribunal. The background facts so far as they are relevant for the purpose of answering the question are as follows :3. Messrs. Orissa Industries Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'),claimed a t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »