Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-23-1948
Reported in : AIR1949Ori60; [1949]17ITR256(Orissa)
NARASIMHAM, J. - The questions referred to us for opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Branch, Patna, are as follows :-(1) Whether, in the circumstances of the case and on the findings of the Tribunal, the income, profits or gains in question or any part thereof accrued or arose within an Indian State and, if so, whether such income, profits or gains were received or deemed to have been received in or were brought into British India ?(2) Whether Section 42(3) of the Income-tax Act is applicable to the facts of the case The assessees headquarters is at Cuttack and he has been assessed to income-tax for the year 1943-44 in respect of his dealings in (a) nux vomica and (b) hides, horns, bones etc., which were gathered by him from several Orissa States and sold at several places in British India through his commission agents known as arhatias. The cash realised by these arhatias from the sales of the aforesaid products were all remitted to the head office at Cuttack. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-09-1948
Reported in : AIR1950Ori67
Ray, C.J.1. The four cases, mentioned above, arising out of as many petitions, were some of the pending cases in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court ceased from the 26th July, under Orissa High Court Constitution Order. They have since been transferred to this Court, and heard analogously, as the points for decision are common to all and will be governed by this order.2. Criminal Misc. 2/48 has been filed by one Saradhakar Naik of Bamra State, seeking interference of this Court, in the matter of illegal arrest and detention of one Jaydev Thakur of Bamra State and to order him to be set at liberty.3. Similarly, Cr Misc. nOS. 3, 4 and 5 of 1948 arise out of petitions filed, respectively, by Jayadev Naik of Bamra, Rual Naik and Pravakar Das of Kalahandi, in relation to the arrests and detentions of Batnakar Patra of Bamra, Nilakanth Patnaik and Lingaraj Daa of Kalahandi. In all the petitions, the legality of arrests and detentions of the prisoners has been challenged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-30-1948
Reported in : AIR1952Ori99
Panigrahi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the District Judge, reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur. The plaintiffs are the descendants of one Nidhi Gountia, who was admittedly the Gountia of the village of Kermali within the ambit of the defendant's zamindari of Borasambar. The plaintiffs' case is that Nidhi Gountia held the village on a Thikadari tenure and that by way of a family arrangement had allotted the 'sir' and 'bhogra' lands of the village to his sons; that the lands described in Schedule B of the plaint had been allotted to his son, Maheswar; and the lands described in Schedule C had similarly been allotted to his son, Gangadhar. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and plaintiffs 3-6 are, respectively, the descendants of Maheswar and Gangadhar. The lands described in Sch. D were, according to the plaintiffs, allotted to three other sons of Nidhi, who are not concerned with the present dispute, and those properties are not in suit. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-29-1948
Reported in : AIR1952Ori143
Ray, C.J.1. The question, involved in this appeal, is whether a plaintiff can avail himself of the benefits of the doctrine of part performance of a contract for sale as against an invasion on his rights by an attaching creditor of the transferor (promisor.) He had objected to the attachment by advancing a claim in Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. The claim having been rejected he brought the suit, out of which this Second Appeal arises.2. The appeal was heard 'ex parte', and the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant No. 1 obtained a decree for costs against them invite our attention to such authorities as could be cited by the respondent had he been represented before us.3. The facts, in short, are that the disputed properties belonged to defendants 2 to 12. Defendant No. 1 obtained a decree for costs against them. After decree, passed on 2-9-1936, the aforesaid defendants separated amongst themselves and the disputed properties fell to the share of defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!