Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-25-1995
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2250; 1996(I)OLR12
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Conviction for commission of the offences punishable under Sections. 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, 'the Act') by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Jaleswar (in short, 'JMFC'), and confirmation thereof by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. For such conviction, sentence of simple imprisonment for one year, and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default sentence of three months, and sentence of simple imprisonment for one month respectively, as imposed by the learned JMFC was confirmed in appeal.2. Background facts which led to the trial of the accused-petitioner, and consequentially his convictions are essentially as follows :On 7-8-1986 Shri Bipin Behari Panda, Drugs Inspector (PW 1) accompanied by the Deputy Drugs Controller. Shri Krutibas Raj (PW 2) and the Assistant Drugs Controller Shri Bimal Kanta Mohanty (PW 3) inspected the nursing home in the name and style 'Kali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-10-1995
Reported in : 1996ACJ1083; (1997)IIILLJ128Ori
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'W.C. Act.), the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the judgment of Asstt. Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Cuttack. in W.C. Case No. 82 of 1990 awarding a sum of Rs. 47.652.75 as compensation in favour of Respondent No. I, workman, Surendra Kumar Sen Jha, for injuries sustained by him in the accident arising out of and in course of his employment.2. The aforementioned W.C. case was instituted on the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Respondent No. 2, Sarala Endowment Trust, owner of the bus OSU 5097 and the appellant, insurer of the said vehicle. The case of applicant, shortly stated, was that on September 12, 1989 he was driver of the said bus. He was getting Rs. 1,500/- per month as his wage. When the bus was going from Puri to Paradeep, it went off the road near Na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-18-1995
Reported in : AIR1995Ori270; 1995(I)OLR526
A. Pasayat, J.1. Nirakar Das, plaintiffNo. 1 having failed to get relief in the Courts of Munsif, Kendrapara, and Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara, has filed this second appeal.2. His case in brief is as follows:One Kelei alias Kinu Das, husband of Kanchan Dibya, defendant No. 3 sold A0.04 decimals of land from northern portion of the suit plot measuring A0.10 decimals of which he was the owner to defendants Nos. I and 2, Gourhari and Bansidhar, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in this appeal. On rest A0.06 decimals of land to the southern portion of the suit plot, a house is standing. Kinu died in the year 1967 leaving behind his widow Kanchan. She transferred the said A0.06 decimals of land along with the house standing thereon, and some other land over which there is no dispute in favour of plaintiff No. 1, and Brahmananda Das and Kalpataru Das, plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 (pro forma respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in this appeal) on 8-12-1976 for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/-, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-14-1995
Reported in : 1995(II)OLR655
S. Chatterji, J. 1. This writ petition along with hundreds of similar petitions as listed on 19-9-1995 has comprehensively been heard by this Bench. As suggested and agreed by several lawyers (sic) for the respective petitioners in different cases as aforesaid and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, this Bench was given to understand that the cases would be argued by three or four prominent counsels appearing for the parties and in order to save time the other counsel will adopt the arguments on behalf of their petitioners. This Court also found the suggestion as practicable and viable and observed that necessary submissions might be made embracing all the points as canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also agreed to the suggestion.2. The petitioners thus have mainly challenged the resolution dated 16-12-1934 of the Government of Orissa. School and Mass Education Department as to taking over the management of all non-Government fully aided High Schools...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-07-1995
Reported in : 1995(II)OLR184
Sushanta Chatterji, J.1. The present reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa, raises the following question :'Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 13,93,793 paid as technical assistance fees can be treated as revenue expenditure to be allowed as deduction?'The facts indicate, inter alia, that the assessee-company entered into an agreement dated December 15, 1979, with Bradley and Foster Ltd. of the United Kingdom. Under the terms of the said agreement, the assessee was to receive technical know-how regarding production of grinding media and other associated parts as well as vertical shaft mills, rings and rollers. In consideration for the supply of such information, the assessee-company paid to its foreign collaborator a lump sum amount of Rs. 13,93,793. This amount was claimed as a revenue deduction. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) in his assessment order held that the payment was in the nature of compensation t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-06-1995
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2417
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Alleging commission of criminal misconduct as set out in Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the 'Act'), prosecution has sought for action against Shri Bharat Chandra Roul, (hereinafter: referred to as the 'accused'), a public servant. It is alleged that he is guilty of offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act read with Section 8(3), of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 1990 (in short, the 'Special Act').2. Section 13, deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of the section is pressed into service against the accused. The same is applicable when the public servant or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any stime during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Clause (e) of Sub-secti...
Tag this Judgment!