Orissa Court July 1995 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surendra Kumar Sendha and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ1083; (1997)IIILLJ128Ori
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'W.C. Act.), the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the judgment of Asstt. Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Cuttack. in W.C. Case No. 82 of 1990 awarding a sum of Rs. 47.652.75 as compensation in favour of Respondent No. I, workman, Surendra Kumar Sen Jha, for injuries sustained by him in the accident arising out of and in course of his employment.2. The aforementioned W.C. case was instituted on the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Respondent No. 2, Sarala Endowment Trust, owner of the bus OSU 5097 and the appellant, insurer of the said vehicle. The case of applicant, shortly stated, was that on September 12, 1989 he was driver of the said bus. He was getting Rs. 1,500/- per month as his wage. When the bus was going from Puri to Paradeep, it went off the road near Na...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ranjulata Bhuyan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ716; (1997)IIILLJ428Ori
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The Judgment of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Cuttack, dated April 24, 1992 in W.C. Case No. -16-D of 1989 is assailed by the National Insurance Company Limited in this appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The point that arises for determination in this case is whether Respondent No. 1, Ranjulata Bhuyan, wife of late Sudarsan Bhuyan is entitled to receive any compensation in the case. Answer to this question depends on determination of the point, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Sudarsan Bhuyan was entitled to receive compensation under the Act for the death of his brother, deceased workman, Trilochan Bhuyan.2. The aforementioned W.C. Case was initiated on the application filed by late Sudarsan Bhuyan claiming compensation as a dependent of his brother late Trilochan Bhuyan. Trilochan Bhuyan who was engaged as helper of truck No. ORU 4741, died o...
Rabindra Sabar and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4222; 1995(II)OLR132
ORDERR.K. Patra, J.1. Heard Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This is a petition by the convict- appellant sent from the Jail praying for re-hearing of the appeal which has already been dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 6-10-1994. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brief 'Code') states that save as otherwise provided by the Code or by other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or Final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Despite the aforesaid legal bar, Shri Mishra relying on the judgment of this Court in Trilochan Dhal v. State, (1995) 8 OCR 57 contended that a Court can re-hear the appeal if glaring mistakes' are detected in the judgment. In that case the learned Single Judge recalled the previous judgment because glaring mistake had crept in. 'Glaring mistake' according to the learned Judge was the effect of non-consideration of evid...
Dibakar Jena Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR134
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner seeks review of judgment dated 21-4-1994 primarily on the ground that essence of prayer in the writ application has been misconstrued. It was not for nullification of result of election to the post of Sarpanch of Kurujang Gram Panchayat; but to declare the process of election illegal as some voters had scope for voting twice; one in respect of Grama Panchayat election, and other in respect of Notified Area Council election. In fact, in the concluding paragraph it was observed that there was illegal inclusion of some voters in two electroal rolls. After having so observed this Court did not interfere on the ground that such inclusion did not materially effected result of election, and in any event dispute could be raised in an election dispute before appropriate forum. This according to petitioner was inappropriate adjudication of his grievance. Mr K. C. Lenka, learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner had not filed writ application in his individ...
Harish Chandra Habuda Vs. Kanakamani Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR157
R.K. Patra, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant in this appeal.2. In view of the final order which I propose to make, minimal facts necessary for it need to be capsulised. Respondent No. 1 fried the suit for declaration of her title and ownership over the suit lands and for recovery of its possession from the appellant. Appellant and respondent No. 4 (defendant No. 4) only contested the suit by filing written statements. Defendant No. 5 being the husband of respondent No. 1 filed written statement supporting his wife's case. Other defendants did not contest the suit. Although 9 (nine) issues were framed, the trial Court took up issue No. 3 first for consideration which relates to the Civil Court's jurisdiction to try the suit. The said issue reads as follows : 'Whether defendant No. 5 is a ceiling surplus-holder and whether the sale deed made by defendant No. 5 in favour of the plaintiff is nominal, collusive and fraudulent in order to defraud the provisions of the O.L.R. Act and wh...
Subodh Behera and Two ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ168; 1995(II)OLR424
A. Pasayat, J.1. The three appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') faced trial on the accusation of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'), along with one Maguni Behera, who was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur.2. The occurrence in which Raghunath Behera (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') lost his life occurred on 28-5-1989 at about 8-30 p. m. The genesis of the dispute as given by the prosecution, in essence, is as follows :Accused Subodh and Madhaba had cut some bamboos and stacked them in their backyard. Those were removed by the deceased and thrown to a tank. Accused Usha took exception to such action and shouted that the bamboos cut by her sons had been removed for the purpose of carrying a dead-body. Kamala Behera (PW 1) thought that the derogatory words were aimed at her and that led to exchange of hot words. In the meantime deceased arr...
Dadu @ Millu Munda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ154
A. Pasayat, J.1. Dadu @ Millu Munda (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') faced trial for allegedly having caused intentional murder of his father Singha @ Singrai Munda (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') thereby committing an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I.P.C.').2. In nutshell, the prosecution case is as follows: On 22-9-1989 the accused went to a market taking some quantity of blackgram to exchange the same for rice. In the evening at about 5 P.M. he returned home with some quantity of rice. The father was not satisfied with the quantity of rice brought by the accused and rebuked him and shot an arrow at him which hit him on the back causing bleeding injury. At this the accused got angry, snatched away the bow and arrow from his father's hands and shot an arrow which pierced into the latter's chest. Another arrow shot caused injury on the right wrist joint. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. On the next day...
Gagan Bihari Nanda Vs. Project Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ1000; 81(1996)CLT641
P.C. Naik, J.1. His application for compensation having been dismissed, the claimant assails the said order before this court.2. On 18.11.1989, the claimant was knocked down by a jeep bearing registration No. ORD 4276 as a result of which he sustained a fracture of his right leg, left hand and some ribs. Alleging that the accident was due to rashness and negligence of the jeep driver, compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed from the owner and insurer of the jeep.3. The owner of the jeep, respondent No. 1, denied his liability and pleaded that the accident was solely due to rashness and negligence of the claimant, and as such, the claimant was not entitled to any compensation.The insurance company, respondent No. 2, admitted that it was the insurer but denied its liability on the ground that the accident was not due to any rashness and negligence of the jeep driver.4. In support of his claim, the claimant has examined himself and narrated the circumstances under which the a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Electro Steelcastings Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR184
Sushanta Chatterji, J.1. The present reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa, raises the following question :'Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 13,93,793 paid as technical assistance fees can be treated as revenue expenditure to be allowed as deduction?'The facts indicate, inter alia, that the assessee-company entered into an agreement dated December 15, 1979, with Bradley and Foster Ltd. of the United Kingdom. Under the terms of the said agreement, the assessee was to receive technical know-how regarding production of grinding media and other associated parts as well as vertical shaft mills, rings and rollers. In consideration for the supply of such information, the assessee-company paid to its foreign collaborator a lump sum amount of Rs. 13,93,793. This amount was claimed as a revenue deduction. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) in his assessment order held that the payment was in the nature of compensation t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Puri Marine Products
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR198
Sushanta Chatterji, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa, moving an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 made under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation and cancelling it?'The matter arises out of the income-tax assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80 for which the previous year ended on December 31, 1978. A draft order of assessment under Section 144B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was made on March 16, 1982. It was despatched, vide letter dated April 8, 1982. It was received by the assessee on April 19, 1982, Directions under Section 144B(4) were received by the Income-tax Officer on August 21, 1982. The final order of assessment was made in September, 1982. The exact ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »