Orissa Court August 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.
Smt. Ketaki Sahu and ors. Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(II)OLR283
R.K. Patra, J.1. The legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1 are the appellants against the reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak who has decreed the plaintiffs suit for declaration of right and title over the suit land and their entitlement to get vacant oossession of the suit house.2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. Their case is that they are the daughters of one Rama Sahu who died in the year 1950 leaving behind his widow Subarna, a son called Sukuti and the plaintiffs. After death of Rama Sahu, his son Sukuti and widow (mother of the plaintiffs) became the owners in possession of the suit land. Following the death of Sukuti in the year 1970 their mother Subarna became the full owner of the property. She died in the year 1972 leaving behind the plaintiffs and her successors-in-interest who were staying in the house of their father's-in-law. On 1 8-1977 when the plaintiffs were repairing the suit house standing on the suit land, the o...
Sushil Kumar Sangneria Vs. Food Inspector, Cuttack Municipality
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(II)OLR317
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question legality of order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Cuttack refusing his prayer for being recalled for the purpose of re-examination. The said prayer was in terms of Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the 'Evidence Act') and under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code')2. A brief reference to the facts situation which is almost undisputed is necessary.Prosecution has been launched' against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 199i4 (in short, the 'Act'). After closure of prosecution case, accused petitioner entered into defence by examining himself as a witness (DW 1). One of the pleas taker* by the petitioner related to warranty. It was pleaded that petitioner had purchased the mustard oil from which sample was collected by the Food Inspector from another concern (M/s. Prag Oil Milh. T...
Ajanta Enterprisers Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(II)OLR463
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Paikray for the petitioner and the Seamed Standing Counsel even though the department has not filed a return for more than a year. The grievance of the petitioner is that while calculating interest, the appropriate authority has not borne in mind the provisions of Section 14-C of 'he Orissa Sales Tax Act and even though the amount has not been paid within 90 days from the date of receipt of the application, though the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent for the first 90 days and thereafter at the rate of 24 per cent per annum, but while making calculation the first 90 days has been excluded on an erroneous impression of the provisions contained in Section 14 C of tie Act. The amount involved in the proceeding being a paltry sum, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of refund of interest passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Mr, Paikray, however states that the provisions of Section 14-C may be Interpreted and clarified so that ...
Huding Singh Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: 78(1994)CLT1031; 1995(I)OLR102
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner faced trial before learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baripada (in short, 'SDJM') for having committed offences punishable under Section 47(a) and (f) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (in short, the 'Act'). He was found guilty, convicted under the aforesaid provisions and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada confirmed the conviction under Section 47(f) of the Act, maintained the sentence, but set aside the conviction under Section 47(a) and consequentially the sentence imposed.2. Accusations which led to the trial of the petitioner are as follows:On 23-5-1987 at 8.30 am. Excise Sub-Inspector (PW 2) along with other members of his staff was holding patrol duty in village Gumudi. Having learnt reliably and entertaining reasonable suspicion about possession by, and distillation of illicit liquor in the house of accused, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›