Orissa Court June 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.
Tribal Development Co-operative Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Sales T ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: [2003]133STC620(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J. 1. In this writ application challenge is to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-II Range, Cuttack (in short, 'the ACST') exercising suo motu revisional powers under Section 23(4)(e) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') read with Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (in short, 'the Rules'), setting aside an earlier assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer, Keonjhar Circle, for the assessment year, 1991-92. The said order came to be passed by the concerned authority with following observations :1. Government have fixed purchase price of mahua flower at Rs. 3 per Kg. whereas assessment has been completed on the royalty value at Rs. 7.35 per quintal resulting in under-assessment. 2. Assessment has been completed on the royalty value of minor forest produces like tamarind, lack, gum, myrobalan and not on the purchase price of the said commodities resulting in under-assessment. 2. Actual purchase price in respect of mah...
Basanti Jena Vs. Pratap Chandra Jena and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC253; 1996(II)OLR70
A. Pasayat, J.1. Both the writ application and the Civil Appeal are interlinked as they are directed against the same order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Cuttack, dated 10-1-1996 in Misc. Case No. 173 of 1995 arising out of Civil Proceeding No. 111 of 1994 rejecting the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act') The application was primarily rejected on the ground that it was not Verified in the proper manner.2. Mr. K.N. Jena, learned counsel appearing for Basanti Jena, the applicant before the learned Judge, Family Court, submitted that the insistence was on signing of the application on each page though the verification had been signed by the applicant, and each page of the application was signed by the advocate appearing for the applicant in the case. Additionally an affidavit had been filed by the applicant to the effect that she had filed the application and had authorised the advocate to sign the application on each page.M...
Kanhei Rana and ors. Vs. Gangadhar SwaIn and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR494
S. Chatterji, A.C.J. 1. The present A. H. 0: is at the instance of the unfortunate parents who have lost their son as their claim application was dismissed by the Tribunal and the judgment being affirmed by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. It transpires from the materials on record that one Laxmidhar Rana lost his life on 30-1-1933. It transpires further that the deceased and some other labourers went in a truck bearing Registration No. OSC 4871 belonging to Gangadhar Swain and Jagannath Swain being Respondents 1 and 2 in Misc. Appeal No. 346 of 1989 to load wooden logs at Nrutang. After loading the truck the deceased was, standing on the left side of the road and at that time the driver of the truck suddenly started the vehicle without using its horn and/or without focussing the light and dashed against the deceased. The claim petition was filed before the M. A. C. T., Cuttack being Misc. Case No. 212 of 1983.3. The ' ribunal framed there issues as follows :(i) If the death o...
Laxmidhar Nayak and 3 ors. (In Jail Custody) Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1996
Reported in: 82(1996)CLT142; II(1996)DMC249; 1996(II)OLR55
C.R. Pal, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the defect has already been removed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner's and Mr. B.K. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.3. The petitioners in G.R. Case No. 982 of 1996 of the Court of SDJM, Bhubaneswar who were charged under Sections 498A, 304B/302/34, IPC have prayed for bail. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is no material to make out a case under Sections 304B and 302/34, IPC. The materials on record at best made out a case under Section 498A. It is further submitted that even if it is accepted that there was ill-treatment and torture by the petitioners which ultimately led the deceased to commit suicide, the same may not make out a case under Section 304B as the alleged torture was not in connection with any demand of dowry. In this context, the learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that any demand made through the daughter-in-law may not amount to dowry i...
Surendranath Mohanty and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)3; 82(1996)CLT743; 1996(II)OLR56
R.K. Patra, J.1. In Criminal. Appeal No. 212 of -1991 Surendranath Mohanty and Prasanna Kumar Mohanty are the two appellants. Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 1991 is at the instance of Taraprasad Mohanty. All the three appellants stand convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psvchotropric Substances- Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act'). Each of them has been sentenced to uncargo rigorous imorisonment for 10 years and pay fine of rupees one lac each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. As both the appeals arise out of same Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. No. 290 of 1991, they were heard together and are disposed of by this Judgment.2. Appellant Surendranath is the father of appellant Prasanna Kumar. Appellant Taraprasad is said to be distantly related to them. Appellant Surendranath stood charged under Section 21 of the NDPS Act for being in illegal possession of 31/2 grams of heroin and cash of Rs. 2828- supposed to be the sale proceeds of the na...
Sudhakar Naik and 13 ors. Vs. State and 3 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(II)OLR123
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. This is an application filed by the accused person in G. R. Case No. 378 of 1995 in the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nimapara, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for quashing the criminal proceeding on the ground that the dispute among the rival parties has been amicably settled. Charge-sheet has been filed and cognisance has been taken of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 294, 506, 336, 427, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The informant and two others (injured persons) have entered their appearance through counsel and supported the submission of the petitioners. It is submitted on their behalf that there was a clash between the neighbouring villagers and, in fact, an application under Section 482 of the Code has been filed which is numbered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 1363 of 1996, for quashing the counter case.Mr. S. K...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›