Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori196
Narasimham, C.J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the State of Orissa against the decision of the Arbitrator, Hirakud Land Organization, Sambalpur, awarding certain specified sums as compensation to the various respondents whose lands were acquired in connection with the Hirakud Dam Project. The acquisition was made under the provisions of the Orissa (Development of Industriess, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Persons) Land Acquisition Act, 1948 (Orissa Act No. 18 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which provided for the speedy acquisition of lands for the Hirakud Dam Project and some other specified projects. Section 7 of the Act dealt with the method of determining the compensation payable to the owners of lands so acquired. If the parties did not reach an agreement as to the amount of compensation payable, that section required that a reference of the dispute may be made to an arbitrator to be appointed by the State Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1960Ori187
Barman, J. 1. The point involved in this reference tor decision of this Full Bench is one of limitation, arising out of two applications under Section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act (Act XI of 1922), -- S. J. C. No. 4 of 1956 relating to the assessment year 1950-51 and S. J. C. No. 5 of 1956 relating to the assessment year 1951-52. The facts, relevant for our purpose, are short and simple. In both the cases notice under Section 33(4) was received by the assessee on 17-6-1955 and the notice was dated 30-5-1955 informing him of the result of the appeal before the Tribunal -- The assessee sent the reference applications under Section 66(1) by registered post on 12-8-1955, and the applications were received by the Tribunal on 18-8-1955, while the last date for filing the reference applications already expired on 16-8-1955. The Tribunal accordingly rejected the applications as being out of time. 2. The only point for consideration is whether on construction of Section 66(1) of the Income-tax A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1960]40ITR93(Orissa)
BARMAN. J. - The point involved for decision of this full Bench is one of limitation, arising out of two applications under section 66(3) of Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S.J.C. No. 4 of 1956 relating of the assessment year 1950-51 and S.J.C. No. 5 of 1956 relating to the assessment year 1951-52. The facts relevant for our purpose are short and simple. In both the cases notice under section 33(4) was received by the assessee on June 17, 1955, and the notice was dated May 30, 1955, informing him of the result of the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee sent the reference applications under section 66(1) by registered post on August 12, 1955, and the application were received by the Tribunal on August 18, 1955, while the last date for filing the reference applications already expired on August 16, 1955. The Tribunal accordingly rejected the applications as being out of time.The only point for consideration is whether on construction of section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori113
G.C. Das, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed againstthe judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack dated March 12, 1954, dismissing his suit, (M. S. No. 132 of 1952).2. The plaintiff commenced the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs. 5986-13-9 pies as damages from the Bengal Nagpur Railway and East Indian Railway Administration on the ground that certain damages to his goods consigned at Kanpur was caused by delay due to negligence and misconduct on the part of the Said railway administrations. Shortly stated, the facts are these : One Sankar Das Kailash Chan-dra consigned 187 bags of potatoes in a closed wagon from Kanpur Central- Railway station under R/R No. 284444, invoice No. 5 dated April 26, 1951, for delivery to the plaintiff at Cuttack Railway Station.According to the plaintiff this consignment was due to arrive at the destination within seven days but actually it arrived after a period of 11 days OB account of the gross negligence and misconduct on the part of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori150; 26(1960)CLT610; 1961CriLJ353
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a petition in revision against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore maintaining the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence of one month's simple imprisonment passed on him under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act (Act 31 of 1946). The petitioner is a minor aged 14-15 years. His mother is the daughter of one Habib Isa (S. W. 1) who is a resident of Kotpad in Koraput district. The petitioner's father is one Anwar Ali who though formerly a resident of Kotpad migrated to Pakisthan some time in 1949 and consequently lost his Indian citizenship under Article 7 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner also went to Pakisthan but returned to India with a Pakisthani pass-port (Ext. 7) in which he was described as a citizen of Pakisthan. In the C visa affixed to the pass-port issued to him, by the Indian High Commissioner in Karachi, it was noted that it was valid for three months from 22-2-56. The petitioner then came to his maternal grand-f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1961]12STC278(Orissa)
G.C. Das, J. 1. These two references under Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (Orissa Act XIV of 1947) were made by the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, at the instance of a dealer, Messrs M. A. Tullock & Company. They were heard together and are governed by this common judgment.2. The facts are: Messrs M. A. Tullock and Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act bearing registration certificate No. BA 1714. They had their place of business in Keonjhar within the State of Orissa. The asses-see deals in minera lores. The period of assessment relates to the second and third quarters of the year 1951, that is, quarters ending on 30th June, 1951, and 30th September, 1951. As required by the taxing authorities, the assessee submitted his returns on 25th July, 1951, and 15th November, 1951, for the aforesaid two quarters. In the return the assessee returned his gross turnover at Rs. 2,69,045-8-9 and Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori161
Narasimham, C. J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Orissa against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Dhenkanal decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for declaration of title and ether consequential reliefs in respect of 13 villages in the district of Dhenkanal on the strength of a grant made in her favour by the Ruler of Dhenkanal on 14th May, 1939.2. The respondent plaintiff is the Rani Sahiba of Dhenkanal, her husband, the Raja Sahib of Dhenkanal being the Ruler of Dhenkanal which was a Feudatory State under the paramountcy of the British Crown till the lapse of paramountcy with the passing of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. The plaintiff's husband (P. W. 1), Raja Sankar Pratap Singh Deo Mahendra Bahadur, was married to her sometime in 1924. In 1935 he made a grant of 8684.55 acres of land (Ex. A) in her favour.The reason for the grant, as stated in that document, Ext. A was that 'on the analogy of the precedents that are in vogue in the family of the Rulers of the St...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1962CriLJ179
R.K. Das, J.1. This appeal is preferred against an order of acquittal dated 6.12.1960 passed by Sri R.N. Dhal Samanta, Magistrate, First Class, Puri in case No. C(II)-129/60.2. The prosecution case may be stated as follows: Jagannath Boral, accused No. 1, filed a criminal case No. C(I) 465 of 1958 against Kashinath Mohapatra and others Under Section 323/426 I.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri. The case was transferred to the court of Sri A.K. Das Gupta, Sub-Deputy Magistrate III Class, Puri (P.W. 6) who recorded the evidence of some of the witnesses including that of the present accused person, both of whom figured a, prosecution witnesses in that cases. Ultimately judgment (Ex. 3) in the original case was delivered by Sri P.C. Patnaik, Magistrate III Class, Puri, (P.W. 2) on 30.9.1959, acquitting the accused persons in that case.Thereafter, on 22.12.1959 Kashinath Mohapatra (P.W. 1) who was accused in the previous criminal case, filed a petition (Ex. 4) to start a procee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1962Ori35
ORDERJ.K. Misra, J.1. The opposite party, as plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 500/- as principal & Rs. 120/- as interest. His case was that the defendant executed a promissory note Ext. 1 in his favour and took a sum of Rs. 500/.-. The case of the defendant-petitioner was that he did not execute any pronote, nor took any money from the plaintiff; that one Dolamani Patra had brought a tenancy case against the defendant and the plaintiff's father jointly challenging certain transfer made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff's father; that the said Dolamani got a decree in that revenue case, and thereupon :the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff induced the defendant to file an appeal against that decree; that the defendant expressing his unwillingness because of shortage of funds, the plaintiff induced him to sign a document, so that they (the plaintiff and his father) would contest the revenue case in the Appellate court, and the defendant would have to pay no expense...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1962Ori149
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Orissa High Court Order against the judgment of a single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Misra, J.) dismissing an appeal filed by the appellant against the concurrent decisions of the two lower courts decreeing the respondents' suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rents and damages. The respondents are admittedly the landlords of a house situated in Berhampur town and the defendant appellant was his tenant. This suit was brought for ejectment and other consequential reliefs on the ground that a valid notice to quit had been Issued.2. Two main contentions were raised by the appellant against the suit for ejectment :i. The notice to quit was not valid; and ii. In any case, in view of the coming into force of the Orissa House Rent Control Act 1938 (Orissa Act 31 of 1958) the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction. On both these points the learned Single Judge held against the appellant but granted him leave to app...
Tag this Judgment!