Orissa Court July 1994 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.
Subash Chandra Jena Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: 78(1994)CLT662; 1995(I)OLR173
Nanavati, C.J.1. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Thanual Grama Panchayat. He has been elected to that post in 1992. On 30-1-1-1991 a show cause notice was issued to him in a surcharge proceeding, and by an order dated 25-6-1993 he was called upon to pay Rs. 18,191.40. By the impugned order dated 28-6-1994 the petitioner came to be suspended on the ground that as Sarpanch of Thanual Grama Panchayat he has wilfully omitted or refused to carry out or violated the provision of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The said order of suspension has been passed under Section 115(3) of the Act and is Annexure-5 to this petition.2. What is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not committed any act after he became the Sarpanch in 1992 on the basis of which it can be said that he has wilfully omitted or refused to carry out or violated the provisions of the Act or the rules or orders made under the Act. Therefore, he could not ha...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR397(Orissa)
1. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated October 7, 1991, in exercise of power under Sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passed in a miscellaneous case, annexed as annexure-1, is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ application.2. The main ground on which the impugned order is attacked is that in exercise of power under Sub-section (2) of Section 254, the Tribunal may be entitled to rectify any apparent mistake in the order and is not entitled to rewrite the judgment or review the earlier decision. According to the Department, by directing substitution of paragraphs 9 and 10 by a fresh paragraph 9 in the impugned order dated October 7, 1991, it tantamounts to rewriting of the judgment. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the power under Sub-section (2) of Section 254 is to rectify a mistake apparent from the record once such mistake is brought to the notice of the Tribunal either by the assessee or by the Income-tax Offic...
Bikram Kumar Routray Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: 1994(II)OLR537
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner's application for dispensing with his personal attendance in terms of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') having been turned down by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Banpur, this application has been filed.2. The prayer was turned down primarily on the ground that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner was of a very serious nature and involves moral turpitude. The petitioner's case is that accusations were false and were aimed at lowering down his reputation in the society and in any event the maximum punshment for an offence punishable Under Section 177. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC) is simple imprisonment for a term which any extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.The learned counsel for State raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the application submitting that the revision is not maintainable. By way of reply th...
Jagannath Cotton Company Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: 1994(II)OLR576
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The five writ applications involve a common question of law and, therefore, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. O.J.C. No. 1166 of 1392 is against an order of re-assessment made by the Sales-tax authority Under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act in respect of assessment year 1989-90. O.J.C. Nos. 6/93 and 162/93 are by the self-same assessee against notice issued for framing assessment for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. O.J.C. Nos. 181/93 and 182/93 are also by the same assessee against notice issued for assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92. The question for consideration in all these writ applications is whether the activity of the petitioner in obtaining cotton from waste cotton can be said to be a manufacture of a product, or merely in a case of processing on which the further question regarding exemption from levy of sales-tax under the Industrial Policy Reso...
Arjun Banchhor Vs. Buchi Banchhor (Dead) After Him Jogi Banchhor and o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ori32
R.K. Patra, J.1. Defendant No. 2 is the appellant against the confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession filed by respondents 4 to 4 (b).2. Case of the plaintiff's (respondents 4 to 4(b)) is that one Birju Banchhor (since dead)and defendant No. 1 were brothers who partitioned their joint family properties and the suit land besides other lands fell to the share of defendant No. 1 who had been possessing the suit land in his own right till he sold it away to plaintiff No. 1 by means of a registered sale deed dated 14-2-1969 on receipt of full consideration. The vendee plaintiff No. 1 took delivery of possession of the suit land from the vendor. Defendant No. 2 claiming to be the adopted son of defendant No. 1 caused disturbance for which a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was initiated which terminated in favour of the said defendant No. 2. According to the plaintiffs defendant No. 1 never adopted defendant No. 2 and since the decision of...
Durgamani Behera and ors. Vs. Ghasiram Mohanta and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-1994
Reported in: 78(1994)CLT689; 1994(II)OLR467
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. Defendants 1, 3, 5 and 7 are in appeal against the decision of Subordinate Judge, Rairangpur, decreeing plaintiffs' suit for title in respect o1 18 manas and 6 gunths of lands and directing delivery of possession of the same.2. Nityananda and Shyama Charan were step-brothers. Nityananda died leaving behind his son defendant No. 8. Shyama Charan died leaving behind his son Bhagirathi. Bhagirathi died leaving behind his widow defendant No. 1 and issues defendants 2 to 7. The suit lands belonged to Nityananda. On 7-2-1949 he executed and registered a sale deed (Ext. B) in respect of the above Sands in favour of Shyama Charan. Then on 24-4-1964 Shyama Charan executed and registered a sale deed (Ext. 1) in respect of the said lands in favour of the two plaintiffs. Then Nityananda brought Title Suit No, 15 of 1965 against Shyama Charan and the present plaintiffs, praying for title and possession in respect oi the suit Sands. On 6-2-1967, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter ...
Hari Barada and anr. Vs. Kasinath Barada and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-1994
Reported in: 1994(II)OLR473
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. The substantial question of law in this appeal is whether the Courts below by their concurrent findings committed an error in holding that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred under the provisions of Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act.Facts :The plaintiffs mortgaged the suit land with the defendant for Rs. 800/-on 19-11-1969 and delivered possession of the land bearing Khata No. 1354 and Plot No. 164, measuring an area of 70 decimals in village Satapentha. Though the plaintiffs repaid the entire amount within a year, the defendant did not give back the possession of the land but continued to possess the same. A dispute having ensued between the parties, a proceeding Under Section 145, Cr PC was instituted in which the final order went in favour of the defendant, holding that he was in actual possession of the land. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession and mesne profits, without seeking any declaration.The defendant in his written statem...
Gangadhar Dhal and ors. Vs. Batakrushna Dhal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ori66; 78(1994)CLT869
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. Plaintiffs are in appeal against a reversing decision dismissing plaintiffs' prayer for declaration of title in respect of 1/4th share in the suit lands measuring about two acres.2. Krushna (defendant No. 4), Indramani (father of defendants 1 to 3) and Batakrushna (defendant No. 6) are the sons of one Balaram. Plaintiff No, 3 is the widow and plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the issues of one Narahari who died in 1948. Balaram was the intermediary in respect of the suit lands and his estate vested in the State Government in the year 1963. After vesting, within the prescribed period as claim was preferred in respect of the suit lands for settlement of fair and equitable rent under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Thereafter in pursuance of Revenue Department S.O. No. 14392 dated 2-3-1964 (commonly known as Lease Principles) in which was extended from time to time, Krushna, Indramani andBatakrushna filed Case No. 1025 of 1975 in the year 1970 for lease of th...
Swamalata Samal and ors. Vs. Choudhury Kanduri Charan Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ957; (1996)ILLJ7Ori; 1994(II)OLR419
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. In this Miscellaneous Appeal the legal heirs of deceased Rasananda Samal assail the correctness of the judgment of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act disallowing the claim of the appellants for compensation.Appellant No. 1, the wife of Rasananda claimed that on July 27, 1987 her husband, who was under the employment of the respondent M/s. Bajrang Stone Crushing Plant at Chadheid-hara, suffered from a reeling of head and fell down senseless. He was removed from the site to Jajpur Road Hospital and therefrom to SCB Medical College Hospital where in the night of July 28, 1987 he expired.2. The learned Commissioner on discussion of the witnesses on record rightly held that Rasananda was working as such with the respon-dent as on the date of alleged accident. But the learned Commissioner held that he did not die of an accident and since the evidence on record proved that he died of hypertension, this could not be said to be an accident arising out of an...
Swaranlata Samal and ors. Vs. Sri Choudhury Kanduri Charan Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC579
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. In this Miscellaneous Appeal the legal heirs of deceased Rasananda Small assail the correctness of the judgment of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act disallowing the claim of the appellants for compensation.Appellant No. 1, the wife of Rasananda claimed that on 27.7.1987 her husband, who was under the employment of the respondent M/s. Bajrang Stone Crushing Plant at Chadheidhara, suffered from a feeling of head and fell down senseless. He was removed from the site to Jaipur Road Hospital and there from to S.C.B. Medical College Hospital where in the night of 28.7.1987 he expired.2. The learned Commissioner on discussion of the witnesses on record rightly held that Rasananda was working as such with the respondent as on the date of the alleged accident. But the learned Commissioner held that he did not die of an accident and since the evidence on record proved that he died of hypertension, this could not be said to be an accident arising out of and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »