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
1. The facts and law involved in all the writ petitions being the same, albeit IMFA and NALCO raised some extra points of facts and laws, they are heard analogously and the following common judgment is passed thereon. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners, all of whom generate energy for their own consumption, challenge the vires of the Orissa Electricity Duty Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in so far as Sections 2, 3 and 5 thereof are concerned. They also challenge the notification No.7721-P-II-Ed.15/92 E wherein Electricity Duty was fixed @ 12 paise for a person not being licencee or board who generate such energy for his own use or consumption. They further challenged the Notification No.GRIDCO-ED- 3/2001-18237, dated 10.10.2001 issued by State Government in their Department of Energy, wherein electricity duty was increased from 0.12 paise to 0.20 paise per unit. According to the petitioners, the impugned impost is expressly on generation/production of electric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 108(2009)CLT821; 2009(II)OLR902
S.K. Mishra, J.1. The matter is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.2. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter referred as 'the Code', for brevity, wherein the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have called in question, the legality of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.). Rourkela in Civil Suit No. 29 of 2007 refusing the prayer of the defendants to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code on the ground of gross under valuation of the suit.3. The simple facts giving rise to this revision application are that the opp.party No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 29 of 2007 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rourkela seeking the declaration that he and defendant Nos. 3,4, & 5 are the real owners of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession and to declare the Sale Deed No. 26362 dated 12.6.2007 in favour of the defendant No. 2 to be null and void. It is undisputed at the stage that the sale deed in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1976Ori52
S.K. Ray, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal from the confirming decision of a single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit, under Article 4 of Orissa High Court Order 1948, read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.2. The appellant filed his suit in the court of the Sub-Judge, Puri for a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee of Radhaballav Math with all its endowments located in the town of Puri being the nominated successor of the late Mahant Shri Radhacharan Das who died in 1963.Undisputedly, Radhaballav Math is an institution of Numbark cult. Its last Mahant was Radhacharan Das who was recognised by all public authorities including defendant No. 1, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner). The plaintiff alleges that the late Mahant validly initiated him as his Chela according to customary and usual religious rites prevailing at the Math and the sect to which the institution belonged, and also exe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : I(2007)DMC221; 2006(II)OLR581
M.M. Das, J. 1. The petitioner in this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has sought for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court to the opp. party No. 1 on 23.7.2004 in BLAPL No. 5319 of 2004.2. On the information of the petitioner, Bhograi P.S.Case No. 113 of 2003 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 309 of 2003 pending before the learned J.M.F.C, Jaleswar under Sections 498-A/304-B/302 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the opp. party No. 1 who is the husband of the deceased and daughter of the petitioner, namely, Sumita.3. After investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed against the opp. party No. 1 under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC. During the course of the investigation, the opp. party No. 1 approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in BLAPL No. 5319 of 2004. Considering the facts of the case, at that stage of the investigation, this Court passed the order dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2271
L. Rath, J.1. All these appeals arise out of the same judgment in Sessions Trial No. 163/4 of 1986/87 and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. All the appellants and two others namely Himanshu Patra and Janmejaya Rajhans were prosecuted Under Section 395, IPC read with Section 25-A of the Arms Act and Section 9-B of the Indian Explosive Act and another Siba Sahu was prosecuted Under Sections 412 and 414, IPC. All the appellants except Suren Kumra (Appellant No. 2 in J. Cr. A.7/89) were convicted under Section 395, IPC, Section 25-A of the Arms Act and Section 9-B of the Indian Explosive Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years Under Section 395, IPC and one year each under the other heads of charges with direction for the sentences to run concurrently. Suren Kumra was convicted Under Section 412, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years. While Criminal Appeal No. 298/88 has been preferred by Munna Naik and Barun Tandia, Jail Criminal Appeal No. 328/88 has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1992(II)OLR173
A. Pasayat, J.1. An interesting question relating to the ambit of application of Section 167(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') is the subject-matter of controversy in this application.2. A brief reference to the fact situation which is undisputed is necessary.Petitioner is one of the accused persons in G. R. Case No. 244 of 1990 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, first class, Banpur. The offence alleged agaist him is Under Section 304-B/34 of. the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, '1PC'). The petitioner was arrested on 28 4-1991 and was produced in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, first class (in short, 'JMFC'). Since the JMFC was absent, the Special Judicial Magistrate, who was in charge heard and rejected the bail application filed by the petitioner, and remanded him to custody till 10- 5-1991. An application Under Section 439 of the Code was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Khurda. The bail applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori26; [1961]31CompCas617(Orissa)
Barman, J.1. The defendant No. 1 is the petitioner in this Civil Revn. directed against an order of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, in mortgage suit No. 53 of 1953, who, --on a consideration of the preliminary issues raised by the defendants in the said suit as to maintainability and jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the said suit, in view ot certain provisions of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, --held that this suit was maintainable in his court and that the said Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the same.2. The plaintiff in the suit is Orissa Bank Ltd. The suit was filed by the plaintiff through its Official Liquidator as Liquidator of the Bank 'In Members Voluntary Liquidation'. The relevant facts shortly stated are these: In 1933 the plaintiff was registered as a company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The name of the Company, Orissa Bank Ltd., was registered as stated in the Memorandum and Articles of Association as appears from a copy thereof ame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1994(I)OLR323
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. These appellants have appealed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1986 dated 24-2-1987. Each of the appellants was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years Under Section 376 IPC, 5 years Under Section 366 IPC and one year Under Section 506 IPC with a direction that all the sentences are to run concurrently.2. The facts of the prosecution case in short are as follows :On 25-2-1986 the prosecutrix Zarina Bagh had been to Footpad to attend the religious congregation of persons espousing Christianity. In the evening she along with one Bibilina Bagh came to the house of one Adam to get some gruel. While they were returning from the house of Adam to the place of their stay by the hospital road, the present appellants met them on the way and asked them from where they had come. The time then was 8. 30 p. m. in the evening. Raman, the present appellant No. 1 tried to drag Zarina to a place...
Tag this Judgment!