Orissa Court February 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahabir Fancy Store
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: [1993]202ITR553(Orissa)
ORDER--Legality of the order--Refusal of registration only challenged--Correctness of assessment not questioned--Legality of order so far as it related to registration could only be considered--Setting aside of entire order not justified.HELD :The assessee has not assailed the quantum of assessment, and has challenged the only refusal of registration. Therefore, it had not questioned the correctness of assessment. The appeal filed by the assessee, in essence, related to that part of the order which related to registration. The first appellate authority was justified in entertaining the appeal and dealing with the question of propriety of refusal to register. But it was not justified to set aside the entire order under s. 144. It could have directed the ITO to reconsider the matter relating to registration, or could have decided it himself. By declaring the order to be invalid and quashing it, the quantum assessed got nullified. It was beyond the scope of appeal, and there was even no d...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa State Warehousing Corporation
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Ori)333; [1993]201ITR729(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, 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, Cuttack (in short, 'the Tribunal') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest received by the assessee from the banks on fixed deposits was exempt under Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances o'f the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest received from the banks on fixed deposits was incidental to or consequential to the activities of the business of the assessee and was not taxable under the head 'Income from other sources' and, thus, exempt under Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. The reference is in respect of the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the asses...
Kanika Chakravarty Vs. Chairman, Notified Area Council and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ249Ori
ORDER1. The petitioner had been appointed as a Community Organiser under the Notified Area Council, Kuchinda since October 10, 1986 and she was placed under suspension by the order of the Chairman of the N.A.C. dt. August 10, 1989 annexed as Annexure-5. After her suspension she was paid subsistence allowance till July, 1990 and thereafter as no subsistence allowance was paid and no definite charges were framed the petitioner approached this Court, on April 17, 1992. The petitioner prays that since no definite charges have been framed against her the order of suspension may be quashed and she may be paid the leave salary and subsistence allowance for the period in question. Pursuant to the notice issued from this Court a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 which has been sworn to by the Executive Officer of the N.A.C. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that the service of the petitioner was terminated by the order of the Chairman dated Dec...
Kanika Chakravarty Vs. Chairman, Notified Area Council and 4 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: 1993(II)OLR42
ORDER1. The petitioner had been appointed as a Community Organiser under the Notified Area Council, Kuchinda since 10-10-1986 and she was placed under suspension by the order of the Chairman of the N.A C. dt. 10-8-1989 annexed as Annexure-5. After her suspension she was paid subsistence allowance till July, 1990 and thereafter as no subsistence allowance was paid and no definite charges were framed the petitioner approached this Court, on 17-4-1992. The petitioner prays that since no definite charges have been framed against her the order of suspension may be quashed and she may be paid the leave salary and subsistence allowance for the period in question. Pursuant to the notice issued from this Court a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opp. party s|os. 1 and 2 which has been sworn to by the Executive Officer of the N. A. C. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that the service of the petitioner was terminated by the order of the Chairman dated 30-12-1989 but th...
Brushabha Digal Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-04-1993
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT839; 1993CriLJ3149
A. Pasayat, J.1. Brushabha Digal (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality of his conviction punishable for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, prosecution case is that on 8-9-1988 at about 5.30 a.m. accused caught hold of the legs of Moli Digal (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'), a girl of two years of age, on the road and struck her on the ground as a result she sustained injury on the head and became senseless. Though she was admitted in the District Headquarters Hospital, Phulbani, she succumbed to injuries. The FIR was lodged at the Phulbani Town Police Station, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, chargesheet was submitted and the accused faces trial. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.3. In order to further its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses, out of...
Rabindranath Mohanty Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-04-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2507
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Accused in proceedings in the court of the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar, for his trial along with two others under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 120-B, 409, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, is petitioner against the order refusing to discharge the accused on account of inordinate delay by the investigating agency to file the charge-sheet.2. During the period between 11-6-1970 and 30-4-1971, petitioner was an Executive Engineer. On receipt of information that during that period petitioner along with others received bank drafts and cash and transacted with them without proper scrutiny and recorded the same in the cash book maintained in the Division Office intentionally conspiring to commit the offences alleged, vigilance staff investigated into the incident. Charge-sheets having been submitted, cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge. Petitioner approached this Court for e...
Anil Chandra Pradhan Vs. L.i.C. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-03-1993
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT871; (1993)IILLJ1080Ori
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. Being called upon to decide whether livelihood of the petitioner was taken away in accordance with the procedure just, fair and reasonable, which is the command of Article 21 of the Constitution, and having known that the petitioner, after he was dismissed from service had to undergo actual hardship so much so that even to approach this Court after his review petition was rejected in 1983, it took him about six years due to ill health combined with bad financial position, we have considered the case from the high pedestal from which a writ Court, being called upon to protect the fundamental right of a citizen of India, does. When a writ Court, to whom justice is dear of all things, is confronted with such a situation, technicalities are not allowed to impede the path of social justice; indeed in exercise of our power under Article 226 technicalities have no scope. It is the justice of the case which motivates a writCourt to exercise its power. Let us see whether a...
Arati Patra Vs. Swarnalata Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-03-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC256
S.C. Mahapatra, J.This is an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').1. In the last Will, the executor bequeathed his properties mentioned in several schedules to the respondents. Appellant is one of the daughters who was deprived of any property being bequeathed to her. Accordingly, when the Will was propounded, she entered caveat to contest the Will as not genuine being unnatural and having been obtained by undue influence. Trial Court having granted letters of administration by setting the appellant ex parts, this appeal has been filed.2 The appeal should have been registered as a First Appeal. However, it is immaterial whether it is registered as Miscellaneous' Appeal or First Appeal, since appeal lies.3. During pendency of this appeal respondent No. 2 expired. There was a dispute whether respondent No. 2 had left behind any legal representation, An enquiry was made. It is reported that respondent No. 2 has left behind a son and ...
Mahesh Prasad Bhagat Alias Maheswar Prasad Bhagat Vs. State of Orissa ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-03-1993
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR339
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. A matter of some importance relating to the implemention of the Urban Land (Ceilig and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter, 'the Act') has coma up for consideration in this petition, The question is whether the land-holder can claim that the vacant land within the ceiling limit which has been specified by him Under Section 6 of the Act must be allowed to be retained by him. Section 6 of the Act requires the land-holder to specify the vacant land which he desires to retain and Section 8(2)(iii), which deals preparation of draft statement, also requires particulars of the vacant land which such person desires to retain within the ceiling limit to find place in the statement. The question is whether this specification visualised by these two sections confers a right on the land-holder to claim that he must be allowed to retain the land so specified or mentioned.2. This question has come up for consideration because it has been found in the present case that a part of ...
Sri Himansu Sekhar Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1124Ori; 1993(II)OLR141
L. Rath, J. 1. An application made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming unpaid wages from April 11, 1984 till the date of filing of the application on November 7, 1989 having been thrown out by the Labour Court, the petitioner has approached this Court for reversal of the order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as an NMR Mate under the opp. party No.2, the Executive Engineer, Indravati Dam Division, Upper Indravati Project, since 1979. That Division was bodily transferred to the control of the Executive Engineer, Indravati Development Division No. II under the same project with effect from June 20, 1986. The Executive Engineer of the transferee Division is the opp. party No. 3 to this case. The petitioner filed the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act (Annexure-1) before the Labour Court enclosing a statement showing the dates of his engagement before the opp. party Nos. 2 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »