Court : Orissa
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
Reported in : (2008)106CALLT192(NULL)
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This batch of Writ Petitions were heard together as common questions of facts and law are involved and these different Writ Petitions were filed in respect of different assessment years by the Petitioner.2. The Petitioner claims to be a non-Banking Finance Company licensed by the Reserve Bank of India to carry on business in leasing as well as hire purchase, inter alia, of plant, machinery and other equipments.3. On or about. 31st July, 1995 a tripartite agreement was entered between the Petitioner company, and M/s. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited (IMFA) and M/s. Isgee John Thompson CUT'). Under the said agreement IMFA was referred to as the 'user', IJT was referred to as 'supplier I contractor' and the Petitioner as the 'purchaser'.4. IMFA wanted to instal a 90 Ton Per Hour (TPH) Spreader Stoker Water Tube Boiler at its Choudwar Power Plant of M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. (ICCL), which is a sister concern of IMFA. For in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
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
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
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!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori223
Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Zamindar of Shergada Estate for delivery of possession of 39.49 acres of land in village Brahmahatya within the ambit of his zamindari and for other reliefs.2. The plaintiff's case is that the suit lands bearing survey Nos. 60, 107 and 115 are his 'hetta' or private lands and that the defendants No. 6, 7, 8 and 20 took them on lease for Fasli 1348 and entered upon the lands as his tenants, that the lease was renewed by a registered document for the subsequent Fasli, but that at the instigation of one Gobind Pradhan the defendants refused to surrender possession and claimed occupancy rights in them. The dispute between the parties led to initiation of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order upholding the possession of the defendants. The plaintiff was, therefore, obliged to file the suit for declaration of his title and for a permanent injunction restraining the said de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori6
Ray, C.J.1. This is defendant 8's appeal in a suit for enforcement of a mortgage dated 27th July 1926 for a consideration of Rs. 12,000 executed by defendants 1 and 2 and their father late Narain Gantayat. The aforesaid mortgage was executed in full discharge of a prior mortgage dated 16th December 1911 for a consideration of Rs. 8000. The latter consideration was made up of cash advances from time to time under promotes and the interests that accrued due thereon. It is undisputed that out of the consideration of Rs. 12,000, Rs. 6000 represented interest accruing due on the pronotes and the prior mortgage bond, the balance being the amounts advanced in cash. Defendants 1 and 2 are the primary mortgagors. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of defendant 1. Defendants 6 and 7 are sons of defendant 2. Defendant 8, the present appellant is a, purchaser of Schedules B-1 and B-2 properties subject to the mortgage. Defendants 9 to 12 are also subsequent purchasers of certain minor items of mor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori146
Jagannadha Das, J.1. Cri Misc. No. 107 of 1949: The petitioner in this case has applied to this Court under Section 491, Criminal P. C., questioning the validity of an order of detention dated 20th April 1949, passed against him, by the Government of Orissa, under Section 2, Orisaa Maintenance of Public Order Act, The petition is dated 4th June 1949, and has been forwarded to this Court through the Superintendent of Cuttack Jail where he was under detention. It bas been stated to us by the Advocate-General on behalf of the Government that this petitioner has since absconded and has gone underground. When this petition came up for hearing before us on 17th and 18th of August, we intimated to the counsel appearing for the petitioner that we would not be prepared to consider the application unless the petitioner presented himself in Court and made himself available receiving the orders of the Court. The petition was adjourned for consideration to 22nd; but the petitioner has not turned up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori99
Ray, C.J.1. This reference arises in Second Appeal NO. 60 of 1945. One Baaudev Moharan, Secretary of Hathotto Co-oparative Society, (defendant-appellant) preferred this appeal against the confirming judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur upholding the decree of the Munsif in a suit for declaration of title and either confirmation or recovery of possession of the disputed Inam lands. The same lands had been the subject of attachment and sale at the instance of the appellant-Society in execution of a decree against a member of the Society, a brother of Ogadhu Pooda, the trustee of Sri Jaganuath Mohaparabhu of Hathotto village. The decree was passed against the former, qua, an individual as distinguished from a trustee. Admittedly, the endowment was not bound by the debts, far lees, by the decree, the execution, the attachment, the sale and the proceeding for delivery of possession that followed. The contention, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue, wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori169
Ray, C.J. 1. The petition ig directed against an order of remand passed by Sri B. C. Das, District Judge of Cuttaok-Dbenkanal, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 87 of 1948, reversing an order dated, 4th qetober 1948 of Sri B. S. Patnaik, Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, in Money Suit No. 8/342 of 1948/47. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 2193-12-0 being the sum borrowed with interest accrued thereon, under two handnotes executed by the opposite party in favour of the petitioner. The defendant resisted the suit, while accepting that the hand-notes were genuine and for consideration, with a plea of payment. The material date on which and since when the events giving rise to this application occurred is 3rd July 1948. On that date, the plaintiff was ready to go on with the hearing of the suit, and filed a list of witnesses. The defendant interposed a plea, as a barrier to the suit, by a petition purporting to be one undtr Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C. for recording as a compromise an aw...
Tag this Judgment!