Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1988Ori207; 65(1988)CLT179; [1988]70STC65(Orissa)
agrawal, c.j. 1. the validity of levy of octrolduty by the puri municipality on the purchase and despatch of marine fish and prawn is the question falling for decision in this case referred to a larger bench.2. petitioner 1 is a registered association of fish merchants in the town of puri and petitioner 2 is an individual. both carry on business in fish and prawn. in course of their business, admittedly they purchase fish, both mariner and fresh-water, from vendors and fishermen within the limits of puri municipality and thereafter transport them mostly to their commission agents in howrah for onward consumption. the opposite party puri muncipality, in exercise of its powers under section 131(1)(kk) of the orissa municipal act imposed octroi duty on fish and prawn either caught from the sea or brought from outside. section 131(1)(kk) reads as follows : --'131. power to impose taxes. --(1) the municipal council may, from time to time, at a meeting convened expressly for the purpose, of which due notice shall have been given subject to the provisions of this act impose within the limits of the municipality the following taxes and fees or any of them - xx xx xx (kk) an octroi on goods brought within the limits of a municipality for consumption, use or sale therein' (underlining is mine) obviously, this power is derived from entry 52 of list-ii of the 7th schedule of the constitution relating to 'tax on the entries of goods into the local area for consumption, use or sale therein .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori106
panigrahi, j. 1. the petitioner had obtained this rate against the appellate judgment of the additional district magistrate, balasore, confirming the judgment and sentence of fine of rs. 25 passed against the petitioner under section 379, penal code, by the magistrate, 3rd class, balasore. 2. the case against the petitioner is that he caught fish in panehpara river on 10th december 1947 without taking the permission of the complainant who claims to be the licensee of the fishery from government. the admitted facts are that plot no. 1326 in mouza bahalpur is recorded in the name of government and is part of a tidal and navigable river. at the previous settlement it was recorded in the name of the local landlord and the fishery right had been assessed at rs. 9. at the current settlement the plot was recorded as a public river in the name of government. both the courts below have proceeded on the assumption that it is a tidal; and navigable river. the petitioner claims to have a common law right of fishing in the waters as the river remains tidal and navigable throughout the year. the question therefore for decision is whether the act of the petitioner in catching fish constitutes theft. 3. the law on what constitutes the offence of theft of fish is more or less well settled. fish in an enclosed space or in a tank closed on all aides is the property of the owner of the tank, the test being whether the fish are confined 'within a limited space. if on the other hand the fish are .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori281
ray, c.j.1. the petnr. p. venkata rao, has been convicted under section 161, i. p. c. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months & to a fine of rs. 500 & in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. the complainant, radhamohan subudhi (p. w. 8), is a small trader in dry fish. he has certain other co sharers & co-partners in the buainess besides his neighbours & villagers, who also trade in the self-same commodities. it is said that on 19-11-1946, he & one brabmaohari approached the petnr. (who was then the station master of kalupara railway station) to settle with him as to what would be the rate per bag of dried pish to be paid to him, as inducement or reward, for indenting a waggon for transporting the dried fish from kalupara rly. station to various other stations. their case was that priviously the station master had been receiving rs. 3 per bag but, of late, was making a higher demand. the prosecution story goes on to say that after some higgling & haggling it was settled that he was to receive rs. 3 per bag. that is a total sum of rs. 240, for indenting a waggon for 80 bags of dried fish to be transported to sambalpur railway station. p. w. 7, mr. s. chatterji, the special rly. sectional officer, deputed on the special duty of detecting corruption, noticed, from a distance, the higgling & haggling between the p. w. 8 & the petnr. after p. w. 8 came out of the station master's room, he contacted him & on enquiry, came to learn what .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1976Ori47
s.k. ray, j.1. the defendants who are residents of village chhelia under mudhupur grama panchayat were sued in their representative capacity for recovery of damages amounting to rupees 7,000/-. the suit was decreed in part for recovery of rs. 4,500/-, with proportionate costs. the defendants in their representative capacity, except the plaintiff, were made jointly and severally liable for the said amount. the present appeal is from that decision by the aforesaid defendants.2. there is a tank on plot no. 96 of village chhelia under the management and control of madhupur grama panchayat. the fishery right in the said tank is leased out for a period of three years at a time by auction held by the grama panchayat, defendant no. 1 was a lessee till 31-3-1962 and on expiry of his lease, a fresh lease was granted to the plaintiff for three years in an auction held on 5-4-1962 in which he was the highest bidder. the plaintiff's lease was to expire on 31-3-1965. the plaintiff de-posited the first year's premium and was granted a patta. but on an application of the out-going lessee, defendant no. 1, the sarpanch of the grama panchayat allowed him time till 20-4-1962 to catch and carry away fish reared by him during the period of his lease. the plaintiffs case is that he executed his kabuliyat on 14-4-1962 and released fish fries in the tank for the first lime on 21-4-1962 and thereby acquired possession of it. subsequent thereto the s. d. o., sadar directed the sarpanch of madhupur .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1956Ori20; 21(1955)CLT275
mohapatra, j.1. these three petitions were heard together as involving similar questions of fact and identical questions of law and they will be disposed of by this judgment of ours.2. the petitioners in the three petitions are fishermen by profession and carry on business of sale of fish particularly from the chilka lake. o. j. c, nos. 21 and 22 are in respect of different portions of chilka lake with their local names within the zamindary of the ex-proprietor of pari-kud (o. p. no. 2) & o. j. c. no. 23 is in respect to the portion of chilka lake locally known as kandakhai jana within the zamindary of o. p. nos. 2 and 3, that is, mt. hoorjahan begum alias mahani bibi and mt. jebunissa bibi.these three petitions are under article 226 of the constitution questioning the legality of the notices served in the petitioners on 3-11-1953 under section 5 (h), orissa estates abolition act, 1951 (orissa act 1 of 1952), hereinafter referred to as 'the act', calling upon the petitioners to give up possession of these janas, that is, the areas of the chilka lake.the petitioners' case is that they entered into contracts with the ex-proprietors of the areas concerned to take all the fish from the portions of the chilka lake with their local names for a specified period. they had also paid heavy sums as considerations for the said contract. the state government of orissa (o. p. no. 1) published a notification under section 3 (1) of the act on 23-9-1953 as a consequence of which the estates .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1978]111ITR923(Orissa)
panda j. - these are two references under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as'the act'), made at the instance of the assessee to answer the following question of law, namely :'whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accounts of the assessee were liable to be rejected and estimates could be adopted by resorting to section 145 of the income-tax act of 1961 ?'as the same question of law arose in both the cases, the two references were heard together and will be governed by this common judgment.the assessee is m/s. orissa fisheries development corporation ltd., tulsipur, cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'the corporation'). the assessment years involved are 1964-65 and 1965-66. the corporation carried on trading, inter alia, in fish in both the accounting years ending 31st march, 1964, and 31st march, 1965, for the respective accounting years.for the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee corporation had shown a gross loss of rs. 24,000 on the sales of fish of rs. 6,11,120. for the assessment year 1965-66, it had returned a gross profit of rs. 3,915 on sale of fish of rs. 3,82,338. for both the years in question, the assessee was admittedly keeping accounts according to the mercantile system.the assessee was making purchases of fish locally from places like balugan and berhampur in orissa. besides, it was purchasing fish from hyderabad in andhra pradesh. it has mainly two centres of sale, one it cuttack and the other at .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1957Ori35
mohapatra, j. 1. this first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 19-9-1949 of sri k.s.r. murty, 2nd additional subordinate judge of puri, arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of the lease-hold property by evicting the defendants therefrom as the lease stands determined and cancelled.the defendants are messrs. national chemical and salt works limited (india), calcutta. the original plaintiff was the ex-proprietor of parikud, and the estate of parikud having vested in the state of orissa under the provisions of the orissa estates abolition act, the state of orissa has been made co-appellant at the appellate stage.the defendants company had taken out a registered lease for a period of 40 years executed by the original plaintiff (the ex-proprietor of parikud) on 12-2-1940. the lease was on an annual rental of rs. 650/-. on the basis of the lease, the defendants obtained right to manufacture salt on the plots locally known as madhuban and it was specifically provided for in the lease that the lessees will have full right to make channels, bundhs, platforms and other requirements for the said manufacture of salt and it bye-products and if necessary the tenants of the second part can set up engine, boilers and other machineries for the said manufacturing purposes.the lessees also had the right to erect buildings and huts for the accommodation of the staff; but nevertheless the lessees had not any right over the minerals. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1994Ori191
hansaria, c.j. 1. chilka. a dream land for the poets and creative artists is now in throes of trouble, leading even to 'chilka bachao' movement taken up by eminent persons of the state. this is because chilka has become a 'stormy island', as a news headlined in hindustan times of 13-9-1993 says, and because chilka is 'getting choked', as flashed in another news of hindustan times dated 26-9-1993. the net result is that chilka, which is the largest inland brackish water-body of its kind in asia and which used to span before eyes like a dream and offer plenty of opportunities to enjoy and rejuvenate our soul, has become an eye sore because of havocs being played by mafias who have become the real monarchs of chilka. all this is due to 'prawn-dollar' disaser developing around chilka, as would be seen from what is being noted later. 2. how can in such a situation chilka, dear chilka, provide livelihood to about one and half lakhs of people (both fishermen and non-fishermen) living in and around chilka in about 132 villages, not to speak of attracting 132 species of migrating birds from distant places like siberia, which by itself has been an attraction of tourists from far and wide? the root cause for this lamentable situation is the failure of the government to recognise the reality of the situation in chilka and massive degradation of its eco system. nothing can be more painful and nothing would be more rewarding if a solution can be found which would be fair and equitable in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1970CriLJ638
ordera. misra, j.1. each of the five petitioners has been convicted under as. 143 and 379 i.p.c. and sentenced to a fine of rs. 100/-, and in default, to undergo r.i. for fifteen days under section 379 i.p.c, while no separate sentence has been awarded under section 143 i.p.c.2. the prosecution case is that on 12-1-1964, petitioners came in a body and in prosecution of their common object committed theft of fish from complainant's tank on plot no. 320 in village dharmakirti. the motive attributed to the petitioners is that they indulged in the aforesaid act at the instigation of the mohant of sidha muth who was ill-disposed towards him. in defence, petitioners denied to have committed theft of fish from the complainant's tank and allege that plot no. 320 belonging to him along with plots nos. 273 to 276 and the intervening plot no. 322 constitute a ghai covered by one sheet of water without any separate embankments for the tanks on any of these plots. therefore according to them, they have not committed theft of fish from complainant's enclosed tank. the courts below, on a consideration of the evidence, found that on the date of occurrence, petitioners caught fish, as alleged by the complainant and that the complainant's tank on plot no. 320 is protected by separate bundhs, and as such, does not constitute one continuous sheet of water along with the adjoining plots. on these findings, petitioners were convicted and sentenced, as stated above.3. mr. mohanty, learned counsel .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1991Ori179
s.c. mohapatra, j.1. defendant is appellant in this first appeal against decree for eviction from a tank and damages for illegal occupation thereof.2. case of plaintiff is that the suit tank is known as agapokhari. it was part of the estate of raja manmathnath deb an intermediary under the orissa estates abolition act and was recorded in his anabadi khata. this tank vested in state of orissa free from all encumbrances under the said act. since tank was used by public plaintiff maintained and managed the tank and being a public tank, it automatically vested in the municipality under provisions of the orissa municipal act, 1950. plaintiff was leasing out the right of pisciculture in the rank since the time it took over management in the year 1953 on specific condition that water of the tank shall not be polluted. defendant took lease for pisciculture in 1956 beginning from 16-3-1956 on annual rental basis. lease having expired on 31-3-1973, plaintiff served notice on defendant on 4-4-1973 to vacate. without vacating, defendant filed a suit for permanent injunction against plaintiff from interfering with his possession. in second appeal no. 237 of 1977 decided on 8-1-1979, high court reversing decrees of both courts decreed the suit making it clear that plaintiff would not interfere with possession of defendant without evicting him in due course of law. accordingly, suit for eviction has been filed claiming compensation for six years amounting to and for pendente lite and future .....
Tag this Judgment!