Orissa Court February 1996 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.
T. Bhagi Patra Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT435; 1996CriLJ2423
Dipak Misra, J.1. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 35 of 1995 taking cognizance of an offence under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is challenged in this application under Section 482 of the Code. As this order taking cognizance is a consequence of the direction issued in G.R. Case No. 304 of 1994, wherein the learned Magistrate formed an opinion and recorded satisfaction for initiation of prosecution under Section 344 of the Code, the prayer is for quashing of both.2. The factual back-drop portrayed by the petitioner is as follows:One Parasad alias Parsuram Sahu stood charged under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and faced trial in G. M. Case No. 304 of 1994 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banpur. The prosecution case was that on 20-11-1994 the accused forcibly took away one goat of the informant. The informant (petitioner herein) being unseccessful in his atte...
Susmita Mohanty Vs. Rabindra Nath Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC567
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question legality of the direction given by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur that she was entitled to maintenance from 3.11.1992, i.e., the date of order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surada (in short, 'the JMFC) while disposing of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'), and not from 5.2.1991, i.e. the date of application for maintenance as was originally directed by the learned JMFC.2. Detailed reference to the factual aspects is not necessary in view of the limited nature of controversy. Essential factual position is as follows :Petitioner filed an application for maintenance in terms of Section 125 of the Code which was allowed and the opposite partly was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- permonth from the date of initiating of the proceeding, by the learned JMFC, Surada. In revision the quantum was maintained, but ...
Smt. Susmita Mohanty Vs. Shri Rabindra Nath Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR361
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner calls in question legality of the direction given by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur that she was entitled to maintenance from 3-11-1992, i. e., the date of order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surada (in short, 'the JMFC') while disposing of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'), and not from 5-2-1991, i. e. the date of application for maintenance as was originally directed by the learned JMFC.2. Detailed reference to the factual aspects is not necessary in view of the limited nature of controversy. Essential factual position is as follows : Petitioner filed an application for maintenance in terms of Section 125 of the Code which was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of initiation of the proceeding, by the learned JMFC, Surada, in revision the quantum was maintained,...
Banabihari Mohanty (Dr.) Vs. Member, Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ987Ori; 1996(I)OLR304
Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question vires of Rule 6(2) of the Orissa Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunals) Rules, 1951 (in short, the 'Rules'), on the ground that it offends fair play and equity.2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary before we deal with the main contentions raised by the parties about vires of Rule 6(2) of the Rules. Petitioner is facing proceeding before the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in T.R.No. 7 of 1994. He moved the Tribunal for permission to be represented by a counsel. No specific reason was indicated by him to show as to why he felt that such permission was warranted. The Tribunal by the impugned order (Annexure 1) rejected the prayer referring to Rule 6(2), holding that engagement of counsel is impermissible.3. Petitioners stand is that the said rule offends fair play and equity, and unequals would be pitted against each other in case interpretation given by ...
Anil Kuma Dash Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR358
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') for expunging certain remarks made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Panposh at Rourkela in his judgment in GR Case No.930 of 1989 (TR No. 111 of 1991) disposed of on 7-2-1992. Petitioner was the informant in the sid GR Case and three persons faced trial One of the accused persons, namely, Padma Charan Samal filed a counter case which was registered as GR Case No. 931 of 1989 in which the peititioner and his wife were arrayed as accused persons. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against them and case was taken up by the learned Judicial Magistrate Second Class (in short, 'JMSC') for trial. Order of acquittal was passed under Section 235(1) of the Code pending disposal of the counter case. The following observations were made, which according to the petitioner, are irrelevant and should be expunged.'It reveals...
Debu Alias Degu Bag Alias Goud Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT891; 1996CriLJ1903
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant assails his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of imprisonment for life.2. Prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 16-8-1989, around 2 p.m. while deceased Gomati was husking paddy in her house, the appellant came from village side and there was a quarrel. Thereafter the appellant entered inside the house, brought out a spade and hit the deceased on the head causing fatal injury. Gomati died at the spot.3. The defence plea is one of denial.4. We have heard Miss. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. R. P. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the state.It is strenucously argued before us by Miss. Mohapatra that the evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain a conviction and further in the worst case even if the evidence is accepted, the very fact that a quarrel between the husband and wife took place as is disclosed from the FIR itself, the case is not covered under Section 302, Indian ...
Surendra Mahanti Vs. Ghasiram Mahanti and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT798
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. This second appeal by defendant No. 1/b. is against the confirming judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and directing partition of the suit schedule properties half and half between the plaintiff and the above defendant. It is admitted case of the said defendant-appellant that though the schedule 'A' property is liable to be partitioned, shedule 'B' property was the self-acquired property of his father Basudeba and the same having been separately recorded in the record of right, he was entitled to the said property to the exclusion of all others.2. None appeared for the respondents. Mr. B. R. Sarangi, counsel for the appellant, did not press the other grounds of appeal so far as they relate to the findings of the Courts below that the defendant failed to prove that 'B' schedule property is his exclusive property and that it was not liable for partition. This has been so done by Mr. Sarangi rightly since this Court sitting in the second ap...
Sethi Transport and ors. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR274(Orissa)
D.P. Mohapatra, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioners in these seven cases are individuals or firms engaged in the carriage of goods by trucks. In the writ application, they have prayed, inter alia, for a declaration that Circular No. 681 (see [1994] 206 ITR 299), dated March 8, 1994, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short, 'the Board'), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, opposite party No. 1, is ultra vires articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India and Sections 44AE, 119 and 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), and for a direction not to make any deduction from the amount due to the petitioners under Section 194C of the Act. Since the facts and points of law involved in all the cases are similar, they were heard together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Circular No. 681 (see [1994] 206 ITR 299), dated March 8, 1994, relates to deduction of income-tax at source under Section ...
Halari Store Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR493
R.K. Patra, J. 1. Both the writ petitions are directed against the notices dated 9-6-1995 (Annexure-1) issued by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, Cuttack-opp. party No. 2 under Section 23 (4) (a) of the Orissa Sales Tex Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') for suo motu revision of the first appellate orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack I Range, Cuttack. The impugned notices-in both the cases are identically worded. OJC No. 4496 of 1995 relates to the assessment year ending 1993-94, the order of assessment of the concerned Sales Tax Officer is dated 22-6-1994 and the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax passed in appeal is dated 14-9-1394. OJC No. 4497 of 1996 relates to the assessment year ending 1992-93, the order of assessment of the Sales Tax Officer is dated 6-8-1993 and the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Sales T...
Sethi Transport and ors. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Ori)454
D. P. MOHAPATRA, ACTG. C.J. :The petitioners in these seven cases are individuals or firms engaged in the carriage of goods by trucks. In the writ application they have prayed, inter alia, for a declaration that Circular No. 681, dt. 8th March, 1994 (1994) 206 ITR 299 , issued by the CBDT, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, opposite party No. 1, is ultra vires Arts. 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India and ss. 44AE, 119 and 194C of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), and for a direction not to make any deduction from the amount due to the petitioners under s. 194C of the Act. Since the facts and points of law involved in all the cases are similar, they were heard together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Circular No. 681, dt. 8th March, 1994, relates to deduction of income-tax at source under s. 194C of the Act from payments made to contractors/sub-contractors. The Board issued the circular purportedl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »