Orissa Court July 2000 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.
Atlas Engineering Works (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR401; [2000]120STC588(Orissa)
R.K. Patra, J.1. In this writ petition, the correctness/propriety of the order dated September 29, 1993 passed in Second Appeal No. 103(C) of 1991-92 is under challenge. By the impugned order the Full Bench of the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal has held that exemption from Central sales tax is subject to the conditions and restrictions specifically stated in the relevant Government notification.2. Facts :The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of T.V. receiver sets. It is a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in brief 'the CST Act'). It had originally disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 16,700 in the annual return furnished on May 14, 1987 for the year 1986-87. In the course of assessment proceedings it submitted a revised return indicating gross sale turnover at Rs. 11,77,677.50. Before the assessing officer it claimed that the entir...
Smt. Malika Dey and ors. Vs. Additional District Magistrate (L.R.) and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR175
P.K. Misra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order of the revisional authority allowing the revision of present opposite parties 5 and 6 and rejecting the application under Section 36-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners.2. There is no dispute that present opposite parties 7 to 11 are the original owners of the disputed property. Nilakantha Dey, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners had filed application under Section 36-A impleading present opposite parties 7 to 11, the original owners. During pendency of the said proceeding, the disputed property was sold to present opposite parties 5 and 6 by present opposite parties 10 and 11. It is not necessary to notice as to what happened at different stages. Ultimately, the Revenue Officer allowed the application under Section 36-A and the order of the Revenue Officer was confirmed in appeal. The present opposite parties 5 and 6 filed revision and th...
Pabani Barik Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR185
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties. The present petitioner claiming to be a tenant has filed an application before the Tahsildar (opp. party No. 4) purporting to be one under Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Under Annexure-2, the order of the Additional Tahsildar dated 25.1.1993, such claim was accepted. Thereafter appeal was filed before the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar, on behalf of the State. The Sub-Collector observed that since a suit was pending before the Civil Court, it was open to the parties to establish their respective claims in the said suit and there was no necessity of pursing the matter. Subsequently, a suo motu revision has been initiated by the Collector and notice has been issued to the petitioner under Annexure-5.2. It is not disputed that the present petitioner has filed T.S.No. 324 of 1996 which is now pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhu...
Balaram Dash Vs. Smt. Gitanjali Dash and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4175; 2000(II)OLR223
P.K. Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sarangi for the petitioner and Mr. Rath for opposite parties 1 and 2. The husband has filed this petition against the order of the Judge, Family Court. Cuttack, granting interim maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to the wife and the minor daughter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in an earlier petition for restitution of conjugal right Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a decree for restitution of conjugal right has been passed against the wife and without complying with the said decree, the wife has filed one petition Under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a petition for stay has been filed for staying the proceeding Under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, till disposal of Title Appeal No. m of 1996 which is now pending before the District Judge. Puri.2. The order of interim maintenance is in favour of the wife as well as the min...
Balaram Dash Vs. Smt. Gijanjali Dash and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC105
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. Sarangi for the petitioner and Mr. Rath for opposite parties 1 and 2. The husband had filed this petition against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, granting interim maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to the wife and the minor daughter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in an earlier petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed against the wife and without complying with the said decree, the wife has filed one petition under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming maintenance. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a petition for stay has been filed for staying the proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, till disposal of Title Appeal No. 74 of 1996 which is now pending before the District Judge, Puri.2. The order of interim maintenance is in favour of the wife as well as ...
Rajan Barge Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR269
R.K. Patra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.10.1992 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1992 by which the appellant has been convicted Under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The core of the prosecution is that on 25.1.1992 at about 7 a.m. Draupadi (P. W. 1), her father Anurja Mahanandia (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and P.W.2 Laxmi (widow of the deceased) started from their house with a trolley to collect seraps from Bolangir town. After some time the deceased came back to his house with a pig. Soon thereafter Draupadi (P.W. 1) was informed that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased at his (appellant) house. She immediately rushed to the house of the appellant and found that her father was laying dead with profuse bleeding injuries on his body.On the basis of the F.I.R, lodged by Draupadi (P.W.I) investigation was taken up and the appellant was placed on trial whi...
Umesh Ch. Mishra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR260
P.K. Misra, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present writ application are as follows :A proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (in short, the 'Act') was initiated against the present petitioner in respect of Ac. 0.090 decimals of land as evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Ultimately, an order of eviction having been passed, the present petitioner filed OPLE Appeal No. 46 of 1972 before the Sub-Collector, Koraput, which was disposed of by the appellate authority by order dated 19.1.1973 as per Annexure-2. The appellate authority while confirming the decision relating to eviction in respect of the vacant land under possession of the petitioner directed that the portion of land on which pucca building has been constructed by the petitioner by availing loan from the Government should be settled with him on payment of Salami and requisite fees. However, neither the Salami was paid, nor any order of settlement was effected, bu...
Mathuri Malik Vs. Commissioner of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR296
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Misra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 5 and learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2. In spite of notice other opposite parties have not entered appearance.2. This writ application is directed against the revisional order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack, in Consolidation Revision Case No. 1886 of 1997. Though several contentions have been raised by the petitioner and refuted by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 5, it is not necessary to notice such contentions, as in my opinion, the matter is required to be re-heard by the Consolidation Commissioner, in view of the defective procedure adopted by the said Commissioner.3. It appears from the order sheet that the Consolidation Revision was heard ex parte on merit on 25.9.1998 as the other opposite parties had not appeared on the said date and the case was reserved for orders. Subsequently...
Purusottam Choudhury Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR202
P.K. Misra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the decisions rendered by the Consolidation authorities.2. There is no dispute that Antaryami Mohapatra and Chintamoni Mohapatra were the landlords and Sadhu Choudhury was the Sikim tenant under them. Hini Choudhury, present opposite party No.4, is the daughter of Sadhu Choudhury. The present petitioner claims that by virtue of the sale deed dated 29.6.1942, Sadhu Choudhury sold his right in favour of the present petitioner and one Sridhar Choudhury and delivered possession and the present petitioner and Sridhar Choudhury continued as tenants. It is further claimed that in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, relating to a part of the disputed land, compensation was paid to Chintamoni Mohapatra as the landlord and Sridhar and . the petitioner representing the tenancy interest. The present petitioner claims that after the death of Sridhar without any heir, the present petitioner is in possession of the entire disputed la...
National Trading Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack- ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]122STC212(Orissa)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Pursuant to the order dated June 27, 2000 the petitioner has filed today the certified copy of the assessment order dated January 21, 1999 under the Orissa Sales Tax Act which relates to the year 1996-97. Although many contentions were raised in support of the writ petition, we need not examine them as the matter can be decided on the following : short point being that the reporting officer himself cannot be the assessing officer. It is said that justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done. Justice can never be seen to be done if a person acts as a Judge in his own cause or is himself interested in its outcome. This principle applies not only to judicial proceedings but also to quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the reporting officer himself took up the impugned assessment proceedings and completed the same. This he could not have done.3. In the result, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »