Orissa Court January 2004 Judgments
Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange Vs. Union of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: [2004]137TAXMAN318(Orissa)
A.K. Patnaik, J.The miscellaneous case and the two writ petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner the Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange and as they are connected with each other, they are being disposed of by this common order and judgment.2. The relevant facts are that the Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange was taken over on 9-1-2003 by the Administrator appointed by the Central Government under section 11 of the Securities Contract (Regulations) Act, 1956. After taking over, the Administrator found that the Assistant Commissioner , Circle- 1 (1), Bhubaneswar had issued notices to the petitioner under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as for short, 'the Act') for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 stating that its income had escaped assessment and pending assessment had provisionally attached the fixed deposits of the petitioner in different banks and in response thereto the petitioner had claimed that its ...
Tag this Judgment!Benudhar Jena and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT526
A.S. Naidu, J.1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging inter alia the order dated 17.6.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 77/33 of 1992/1990 confirming an order dated 7.4.1990 passed by the J.M.F.C., Puri in G.R. Case No. 972/ 1987 (Tr. No. 426/1988) convicting the petitioners under Sections 342 and 323, IPC and sentencing them thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 each on each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month,2. Prosecution case is that on 5.8.1987 at about 7.30 a.m. the informant had gone to the house of Benudhar Jena, accused-petitioner No. 1, for collection of money towards the sale proceeds of rice given to him on credit when the younger brother of Benudhar gave the informant a push. The informant then went away to his house and again went to the house of Benudhar being armed with a 'Kuradhi' and challenged if anybody had the courage to come and assault him. At this, the accused persons came in a b...
Tag this Judgment!Basudev Kar Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1572; 2004(I)OLR318
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed inter alia challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in G.R. Case No. 1042 of 1985 (Tr. No. 204 of 1992) by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhadrak convicting the petitioner under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to under go S.I. for three months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1992, confirmed the said order of conviction and sentence.2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the short fact of the case were that on 23rd October, 1985 in the evening when the injured, P.W. 1 sat down to urinate in front of a fence near his house, the accused stealthily approached and threw acid by a plastic mug on the left side of his face and body. P.W. 1 raised hulla and P.W. 5, Udaya rushed to the spot, found the wearing apparels of P.W. 1 to be smoldering with acid fumes and he had sustained burn injur...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa and anr. Vs. Deepak Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ori122; 2004(I)OLR444
M. Papanna, J.1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No. 727 of 1998, appellants preferred this appeal.2. Facts of the case relevant for the purpose of adjudication of preliminary question of maintainability of the present appeal are delineated below :--The land in dispute was leased out in 1971 by Government of Orissa in favour of one Gopal Chandra Das who is respondent No. 2 herein. The lessee sought for permission of the Government for transfer of the said land in favour of his son Ashok Kumar Das, respondent No. 3. Government, in turn, allowed the lessee to transfer the property in favour of his son provided a sum of Rs. 92,976/- is deposited by the transferee. When the matter stood thus, T. S. No. 727/ 98 was brought by one Deepak Kumar Das as plaintiff before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. The said plaintiff is no other than brother of Ashok Kumar Das and son of original lessee. He prayed...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Kumar Dakua and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(I)OLR316
A.S. Naidu, J. 1. This criminal revision has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 5.9.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Crl. Appeal No. 26 of 1995 confirming the order dated 10.8.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhanjanagar in G.R. Case No. 504 of 1981 convicting the petitioners for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 452/149 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C; S.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, S.I. for one month for the offence under Sections 323/149 I.P.C; S.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default, S.I. for one month for the offence under Sections 325/149 I.P.C. and S.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, S.I. for two months for the offence under Sections 452/149 I.P.C. with a direction that the sentences of imprisonme...
Tag this Judgment!Ghana Pradhan and ors. Vs. Raghunath Alias Arakhita Pradhan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ori114; 97(2004)CLT227; 2004(I)OLR372
P. K. Tripathy, J. 1. Heard.2. This writ application is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission on consent of the parties.3. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 677 of 2001. They filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC registered as Misc. Case No. 252 of 2001. As stated by learned counsel for the petitioners in that application for temporary injunction, petitioners prayed for temporary injunction with respect to consolidation Plot No. 236, corresponding to Hal Settlement Plot No. 219. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the contesting opposite party members. Plaintiff, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and the other defendants are members belonging to the same family. As noted in the impugned judgment, the status of partition 50 years back is an admitted fact. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri rejected the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC taking note of the fact that in the record of rights, note of possession was in favour of the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Narasingh Ch. Ray Vs. Radhagovind Deb and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT278
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application is directed against the orders passed by the authorities under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 dated. 10.5.1965, 6.6.1967 and 21.10.1967 respectively.2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ application on the grounds of delay and latches. The final order passed by the Board of Revenue in the O.E.A. proceeding was on 21.10.1967 and the writ application has been filed in the year 1993 after more than 25 years. Since preliminary objection was raised on the above grounds, the case was initially heard on the above point. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to some decisions submitted that if the Court is satisfied that the petitioner has a strong case-to be made out during hearing, the question of delay and latches will not stand on the way of the Court. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Assandas Vazirani and anr. Vs. Dr. Sunil Prakash Gupta and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT302; 2004CriLJ2214; 2004(I)OLR367
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Criminal Misc. Case No. 4961 of 1998 is directed against the order dated 9.1.998 passerby the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswarin 2(c) C.C. No. 4 of 1998 taking cognizance of offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(k), 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Criminal Misc. Case No. 2731 of 1999 is directed against the order dated 13.1.1999 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal in I.C.C. Case No. 2 of 1999 taking cognizance of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Prosecution case in Crl. Misc. Case No. 4961 of 1998, as is revealed from the petition, is that on 28.2.96 at about 2.30 P.M. the opposite party No. 1 who is designated Insecticides Inspector for Orissa seized Phosphamidon 85% S.L. batch No. A0980227 in presence of two witnesses from the shop of opposite party No. 2. The manufacturing date of the seized article was 13.10.1995 and the expiry date was '12.10.97. After seizure of the article, same was divided int...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanta Kumar Panda Vs. Central Electricity Supply Company and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 97(2004)CLT689; [2004(101)FLR976]; (2004)IILLJ527Ori; 2004(I)OLR364
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 8.4.2003 passed in O.J.C. No. 10880 of 2001 mainly on the ground that the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case instituted on the selfsame ground, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr.; (1999) 3 SCC 679, he could not have been found guilty in the Departmental Proceeding and that the enquiry report having not been supplied to the delinquent petitioner along with the second show cause notice, the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated, which the Court while considering the aforesaid writ application, has not taken note Of. Both the contentions of the learned Counsel are misconceived and otherwise not tenable in a review petition.2. In Captain M. Paul Anthony case (supra), the Apex Court was considering a case where punishment was imposed on the basis of an ex-parte departmental proceeding and the charges both in the criminal proceeding a...
Tag this Judgment!Kunu @ Chhabindra Dalei and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 2006(II)OLR169
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 25.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada if S.T. No. 32/272 of 2002 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the Chemical Examiner for examination and cross-examination.2. From the record, it appears that the petitioners are facing trial for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 of the Penal Code. It appears from the impugned order that the Chemical Examiner had opined that organ chloro insecticidal poison was detected during examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner as it appears from the impugned order was proved on admission and examination of the Chemical Examiner was dispensed with. The said report was marked as Ext. 11 and after closure of the prosecution evidence as well as examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. an application was filed under Section 293 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »