Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-12-1988
Reported in : 66(1988)CLT456; 71STC25(Orissa)
..... therefore, intended that where the dealer fails to satisfy the assessing authority or where there are no materials before as to the value of the goods involved in works contract which are exigible to orissa sales tax, the deeming provision should be resorted to with a view to determining the taxable turnover. so understood, the expression 'taxable turnover ..... b) ...(c) 'dealer' means any person who carries on the business of purchasing, selling, supplying or distributing goods (including goods used or involved in the execution of works contract, whether as goods or in some other form), directly or otherwise, whether for cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration and includes,--(i) to ..... supreme court, orissa act 18 of 1959 was enacted amending the act and all provisions in the act authorising levy and collection of tax on goods involved in works contracts were omitted. since then various states lost the scope of augmenting their revenue from that source and accordingly, after deep deliberation constitution was amended by the 46th constitution ..... all kinds of movable property which includes all materials, articles and commodities whether or not to be used in construction, fitting out, improvement and repair of immovable property' and 'contract' was defined to mean 'any agreement for carrying out for consideration the construction, fitting out, improvement or allotment of any building, road, bridge or other immovable property'. during .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-26-1988
Reported in : 65(1988)CLT764; 1988CriLJ1554
..... the public or to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property or to enter into an express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed commits forgery. section 467 i.p.c. is the offence of forgery of valuable security and, therefore, the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-05-1988
Reported in : 1989CriLJ238
orderk.p. mohapatra, j.1. this revision is directed against the order passed by the learned special judge, bhubaneswar, allowing a petition under section 311 of the code of criminal procedure (code for short) and permitting the prosecution to examine the authority sanctioning the prosecution.2. on the basis of the f.i.r. dated 9-8-1979 lodged by an inspector of c. b. i. and after due investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, ex-branch manager, united commercial bank, narasingpur, on 26-4-1980 for having committed misappropriation of cash of rs. 7000/-. he was charged for having committed offences under sections 5(l)(c) and 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). the trial commenced on 28-4-1982 and in due course 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 15 documents were proved and exhibited. prosecution was closed on 25-9-1984, accused's statement was recorded on 21-1-1985 and arguments of both the parties were finally heard and closed on 25-3-1985. during argument it was submitted by the learned defence counsel that the order of sanction under section 6 of the act was not proved and the aforesaid technical defect was one of the grounds for which the petitioner was entitled to be acquitted after close of the arguments, though on the same day, the prosecution filed a petition under section 311 of the code for examination of the sanctioning authority and for proving of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-22-1988
Reported in : AIR1989Ori133
..... to reject the thing done because he did not come in the picture at all. there was no scope for his refusal therefore, in my opinion, section 70 of the contract act was not attracted at all the lower appellate court did not advert to this aspect of the case because at an earlier stage before remand the appellate court had ..... exclusive occupation and enjoyment of the premises wherein he was running his business upon dissolution of the partnership and was, therefore, liable for t he rent. s. 70 of the contract act reads as under:'where a person lawfully does anythingfor another person, or delivers anything tohim, not intending to do so gratuitously, andsuch other person enjoys the benefit thereof,the ..... were mainly urged by the learned counsel for the appellants. firstly, kanheilal was not entitled to a decree for reimbursement in the sum of rs. 420/-, section 70 of the contract act on the facts and in the circumstances not being applicable. secondly, the appellant having been impleaded as defendant-2 by order dt. 7-10-76, the suit should have .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-27-1988
Reported in : 71CompCas220(Orissa)
..... the present case, as the conditions necessary for applicability of section 70 are neither pleaded nor proved, such a claim under section 70 of the indian contract act cannot be advanced for the first time in the appellate court.22. learned counsel for the appellants contended that even if the nine disputed bills, ..... to pay to the bank the value of the goods supplied by the defendant-company by virtue of the provisions of section 70 of the indian contract act. one of the essential requirements of section 70 is that the plaintiff must lawfully do something for the defendant or deliver something to him. ..... -company placed any material to show that there was privity of contract, either express or implied, between defendants nos. 11 to 16 on the one hand and the plaintiff-bank on the other regarding the transactions relating to ..... realisation of the same, the plaintiff-bank's suit against defendants nos. 11 to 16, as filed, is not maintainable, as there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff-bank and defendants nos. 11 to 16 in the matter of the supply of the goods. 20. neither the plaintiff-bank nor the defendant ..... 16 in any of the other paragraphs of the body of the plaint. the plaintiff-bank has not pleaded anything about there being a privity of contract, either expressed or implied between the plaintiff-bank on the one hand and defendants nos. 11 to 16 on the other in relation to the transactions .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-14-1988
Reported in : 1989CriLJ1872
orderd.p. mohapatra, j.1. the delinquents in the proceeding under section 107, criminal procedure code (for short 'the code') have filed this application under section 482 of the code praying to quash the proceeding in criminal misc, case no. 713 of 1988 pending in the court of the executive magistrate, puri. the proceeding was initiated at the instance of the opposite parties 2 to 14 who are arrayed as the first party therein. the ground on which the proceeding is challenged is raised very often in such proceedings. it is this : the learned magistrate issued the notices merely on the police report without holding any independent enquiry.2. it appears from the records that oh getting the report of the officer-in-charge, kakatpur police station, the learned executive magistrate, puri felt satisfied from the said report that there was apprehension of imminent breach of the peace and disturbance of public tranquillity and that action under section 107 of the code was necessary to be taken against members of the second party. accordingly he noticed the petitioners on 5-10-88 to appear in his court on 15-10-88 and show cause as to why they should not execute bonds for rs. 1,000/- with one surety each for the like amount to keep peace in the locality for a period of one year. on being served with the notice the notices have filed this application challenging the proceeding mainly on the ground noticed earlier. a further ground has been taken that the notice lacks particulars of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-01-1988
Reported in : 1989CriLJ1598
h.l. agrawal, c.j.1. whether the allegations made by the opposite party m.s. jaggi would constitute contempt of court is the question which falls for our decision.2. the facts:the contemner was a party in two criminal revisions filed in this court. he was petitioner in criminal revision no. 558 of 1979 and opposite party in criminal revision no. 432 of 1979. in both the revisions, the contemner's adversary was subash chandra mohapatra.on 29-4-1980 criminal revision no. 432 of 1979 (in which the contemner was opposite party) was taken up for hearing by j. k. mohanty, j. (as be then was) when the contemner had appeared in person to argue the case. hearing was concluded and the case was reserved for judgment.criminal revision no. 558 of 1979 in which the contemner was the petitioner was taken up for admission by justice mohanty on 14-5-1980. on that day the contemner orally told the judge not to take up the revision as his adversary subash chandra mohapatra happened to be related to the hon'ble judge inasmuch as the mother-in-law of the judge and the wife of the elder brother of subash chandra mohapatra were sisters and particulary when the hon'ble judge was residing in the house of his father-in-law right from the time of his marriage.notwithstanding the above conduct of the contemner, the learned judge took up the case for admission which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move again after disposal of the criminal case and the contemner was asked to file an .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-27-1988
Reported in : 65(1988)CLT416; 1989CriLJ360
r.c. patnaik, j.1. this is an application by the brother of detenu babu alias pratap sahoo for a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention dt. 1-8-87 (annexure-1) passed by the district magistrate, cuttack (opposite party 3) under the provision of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the national security act, 1980.2. the ground of detention dt. 3-8-87 as per annexure-2 furnished to the detenu reads as under:on 29-7-87 at about 9.30 p.m. while minaketan muduli, owner of mangala hotel, badambadi was returning to his house in a scooter with his servant rabindra bhola carrying a black and while portable t. v. (konark gitanjali), yourself going on a rickshaw met them near their house at badambadi. while minaketan was keeping the scooter inside the house, you enquired from his servant as to who was the owner of the t.v. when the servant replied that the t. v. belongs to minaketan, you directed him with threats to keep the t.v. in your rickshaw. as he did not pay any heed to your direction you threatened him by showing knife, snatched away the t.v. and kept it in your rickshaw. when minaketan enquired as to why you were taking away the t.v. you reminded him that earlier he had not paid you rs. 50.00 'dada chanda'. he (minaketan) should therefore pay rs. 1,000.00 and take 'back the t.v. saying so you went away with the t.v. in the rickshaw towards jhanjirimangala side hurling the knife. thereafter minaketan followed you with his servant and younger , brothel. near .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-05-1988
Reported in : 67(1989)CLT49; 70STC333(Orissa)
k.p. mohapatra, j.1. the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 7th january, 1980 (annexure 9) passed by the commissioner of sales tax, orissa, respondent no. 2 ('commissioner' for short) in exercise of his suo motu power of revision conferred under section 23(4) (a) of the orissa sales tax act read with rule 80 of the orissa sales tax rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' and the 'rules') by which orders passed by the special additional commissioner of sales tax, orissa, on 24th may, 1978 (annexure 6 series) allowing interest to the appellant under section 14-c were set aside.2. facts which are not in dispute are stated below. the appellant, messrs orient paper mills, a manufacturer of paper having its factory premises at brajarajnagar, is a registered dealer under the act and was assessed by the sales tax officer, jharsuguda (for short 's. t. o.') for the assessment years 1967-68, 1970-71 and 1971-72. on 2nd july, 1974 the additional sales tax tribunal in second appeal directed refund of tax for the year 1967-68. on 30th december, 1974 the appellant filed a refund application. on 31st january, 1975 the assistant commissioner of sales tax, sambalpur range, in appeal directed refund of sales tax for assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. on 4th april, 1975 the appellant filed refund applications. the refund applications referred to above were not promptly attended to by the s.t.o., but on 15th march, 1977 he intimated the appellant by letters (annexure 1 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-11-1988
Reported in : 70STC347(Orissa)
k.p. mohapatra, j.1. in all these writ petitions common questions of law and fact arise, and so they are disposed of by this judgment.2. petitioner, delhi bar & restaurant sells food, eatables, ice-creams, chocolates, fruit juices and other beverages. it was assessed to sales tax under section 12(4) of the orissa sales tax act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. similarly, petitioner, m/s. standard restaurant selling food, eatables and beverages, was assessed to sales tax under section 12(4) of the act for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82. according to the assessing officer, the petitioners were liable to pay sales tax on the sale of food and drinks in view of the decision in  45 stc 212 (sc) [northern india caterers (india) ltd. v. lt. governor of delhi}.3. learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, urged that in view of the constitution (46th amendment) act, 1982, turnover of sale of food and beverages was not exigible to sales tax. therefore, the impugned orders of assessment are liable to be quashed.4. these cases are covered by the decision of this court, rendered by the honourable the chief justice and myself, in o.j.c. nos. 661, 662 and 658 of 1985 and o.j.c. nos. 374, 626 and 627 of 1986, sagarika hotel v. union of india  70 stc 269 decided on 22nd february, 1988, in which we held as follows :in the review decision of the northern india caterers case  46 stc 212 (sc) it was held as follows :.that where .....Tag this Judgment!