Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade marks Sorted by: recent Court: orissa Year: 1970 Page 1 of about 14 results (0.032 seconds)

Apr 03 1970 (HC)

Bisra Limestone Co. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Apr-03-1970

Reported in : [1971]27STC531(Orissa)

..... written by him in reply to a querry made by the petitioner that some of the goods were covered by the certificate of registration. the relevant portion of that letter--marked annexure e-- runs thus:--'under section 8(3) of the central sales tax act, a dealer is entitled to purchase goods in the course of inter-state ..... trade and commerce at a concessional rate for re-sale, for use in manufacture, and for use in mining or processing etc. accordingly yon are entitled to purchase machineries and spare .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 1970 (HC)

Keluni Dei Vs. Kanhei Sahu and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Dec-24-1970

Reported in : AIR1972Ori28; 37(1971)CLT178

r.n. misra, j. 1. this is a plaintiffs appeal against the confirming decision of the first additional subordinate judge, cuttack. 2. the plaintiff sued for her own title and for a declaration that the defendants 1 to 4 had not acquired any title by virtue of their sale deeds. she also wanted affirmation of her possession and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her right and possession. 3. the plaintiff became an orphan and the defendant no- 5 said to be her maternal uncle as de facto guardian transferred her entire property in favour of the defendant no. 1 on 7th june 1948 (ext. c). the defendant no. 1 sold a part of that property under two separate registered sale deeds in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 on 9th february. 1951 (ext. b) and 21st january. 1959 (ext. a) respectively. a short genealogy would show the relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1. arta _____________|_____________ | | chakradhar netrananda _____|_________ | | | keluni (daughter) banamali kanhei (d.1) (plaintif)4. the plaintiff alleged that the alienation by the de facto guardian was not for necessity nor for consideration and was not binding upon her. accordingly, she wanted the alienations to be set aside. 5. the defendants 1. 3. 4 and 5 contested; the defendants 1 and 5 filed one joint written statement, while the defendants 3 and 4 filed another. they contended that the sale was for legal necessity and the minor had benefited by the transaction. 6. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1970 (HC)

State of Orissa Vs. Industry and Commerce Enterprisers (P.) Ltd. and a ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Dec-11-1970

Reported in : [1971]28STC665(Orissa)

g.k. misra, c.j. 1. facts may be stated in short as the case turns on a pure question of law having no bearing on the merits of the case. opposite party no. 1 is a dealer in iron and steel goods and godrej furniture. his returns for fifteen quarters ending with 31st march, 1958, 30th june, 1958, and 31st march, 1959, to 31st march, 1962, were not accepted by the assessing authority on the finding that the turnovers were suppressed. the turnovers were accordingly enhanced and penalty was imposed. in first appeal the assistant commissioner of sales tax (a.c.s.t) struck down the enhancements and the penalties. against the orders of the a.c.s.t. fifteen second appeals were filed before the sales tax tribunal. the advocate for opposite party no. 1 raised two preliminary objections before the tribunal that the appeals were barred by limitation and that sri l.c. sahu, the then state representative who had signed and verified the memoranda of appeals, had no authority to file the appeals on behalf of the state of orissa, and as such the appeals were not maintainable. the learned member, tribunal, rejected the objection regarding limitation and the same has not been canvassed before us. that matter would, therefore, be taken to have been concluded. he, however, held that sri l.c. sahu had no authority to sign and verify the memoranda of appeals and as such the second appeals before him were incompetent.he further held that in these cases the commissioner had passed no orders directing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1970 (HC)

Basanta Misra and ors. Vs. Laxmi Alias Jagyasani Misrani

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Nov-24-1970

Reported in : 37(1971)CLT195

orderr.n. misra, j.1. the plaintiff-opposite party is the widow of a predeceased son of the petitioners. she became a widow sometime in 1953, and being in difficulty for obtaining maintenance she filed a suit on 19th april 1965 for maintenance. the suit was dismissed on 29th april 1967. she appealed. the learned appellate judge, by his order dated 9th march 1968, framed two issues and called upon, the trial court to return findings on such issues. the findings were returned on 13th august 1968. when the appeal was further heard, the learned appellate judge raised two more issues which ran to the following effect:'(1) whether the plaintiff is entitled to any maintenance from the period of institution of the suit till 1-3-68 in view of the fact that she was getting monthly remuneration of rs. 40/- as school mother:(2) whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance at the rate of rs. 60/-per month from 1st march 1968 till her life-time in view of the changed circumstances and if not at what rate she is entitled to maintenance'. after raising these two additional issues, the learned appellate judge remitted the matter to the trial court calling upon him to decide these two issues only by giving opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence pertinent for a decision of these two issues.2. it is against this direction for remand that the present revision has been filed.3. mr. patra, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order of remand is absolutely .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1970 (HC)

Nazir Mahammad Vs. Jamila Bibi and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-28-1970

Reported in : [1972]85ITR342(Orissa)

k.n. misra, j.1. opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 who are plaintiffs have instituted t.s. no. 300 of 1969 in the court of the learned subordinate judge of cuttack. in essence it is a suit for partition. the business assets of the family are included in the hotchpot for partition and such business was being run in the names of m/s. roshan mahammad and m/s. nazir mahammad.2. when the trial commenced, an application was made by the plaintiffs for summoning the income-tax records relating to the asssessment years 1953-54 to 1968-69 from the income-tax officer, ward c, who was the concerned assessing officer. no notice was given of this application to defendant no. 2, who is the petitioner in this court, but orders were passed calling upon the income-tax officer to produce the records. on july 9, 1970, the documents were produced by an inspector of the income-tax department. at that point the objection was raised by the defendants about the legality of the order calling for production of the documents and the power of the court to receive those documents. this objection was on the basis that there was a bar against production of these documents under the income-tax act, 1961. the objection was over-ruled by the learned trial judge and he held that the order of production was justified and he was competent to receive the documents from the income-tax department. the present revision application is directed against that order.3. certain facts which are material to be indicated for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 1970 (HC)

Prafulla Kumar Dutta Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jun-22-1970

Reported in : (1971)ILLJ65Ori

..... , satya kinkar v. babulal. wherein ahmad, j. (as he then was), took the view that an artisan is one who is trained to manual dexterity in some mechanic art or trade. in that sense a driver may or may not be an artisan, but if a driver is also a mechanic he would certainly be classified as an artisan. the patna .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1970 (HC)

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Mar-27-1970

Reported in : [1971]27STC450(Orissa)

..... (hereinafter referred to as the act). he further contended that the orissa rule is not binding on the purchasing dealers of other states who in the course of inter-state trade purchase from the dealers in orissa, and as such form 'c' procured from the purchasing dealers of outside states cannot be questioned in orissa for non-compliance of the impugned ..... 13(4)(e).4. the second contention of mr. mohanty is that the impugned orissa rule could not bind outside purchasers in their purchases in the course of inter-state trade inasmuch as they are to be governed by the rules prescribed in the respective states as framed by the state governments. it is not contended before us that in respect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1970 (HC)

Simhadri Narasingh Prusty and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Mar-05-1970

Reported in : [1971]79ITR219(Orissa)

g.k. mishra, c.j.1. the question referred to this court by the income-tax appellate tribunal, under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, runs thus:' whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm is entitled to registration '2. in the reference order, the tribunal has clearly stated the facts out of which the reference arises. those facts may be stated, in order to appreciate the point in issue. simhadri narasingh prusty and chinnam judhistir patro constituted a partnership business. they carried on business from 1948-49 onwards. it had been granted registration under the indian income-tax act, 1922, up to and including the assessment year 1959-60 judhistir patro was a partner in this firm representing a hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his sons. on january 6, 1959, there was a partition in the family and the share of judhistir patro in the firm was allotted to his minor son, budhibaman patro. the partition was effected by a registered deed and was given effect to under section 25a of the indian income-tax act, 1922. from january 6, 1959, budhibaman patro was shown as a partner in the books of the firm and the capital standing to the credit of his father was credited in his name. subsequently, it was realised that the partnership with the minor was contrary to law and as such judhistir desired to constitute a fresh partnership with simhadri narasingh prusty. accordingly, a fresh partnership deed was executed and registered on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1970 (HC)

Belpahar Refractories Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Mar-03-1970

Reported in : [1970]26STC567(Orissa)

g.k. misra, c.j.1. the petitioner is the belpahar refractories ltd., having its place of business at belpahar in the district of sambalpur in orissa. it is a registered dealer under the central sales tax act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the act). during the quarter ending 31st march, 1960, various transactions of sale were effected in respect of which three declarations in form 'c' were given. the sales were made to the tata iron and steel company ltd. in bihar. one of the declarations was given on 18th march, 1960 and this declaration was filed along with the return and was accepted by the sales tax officer. the subject-matter of this declaration is no longer in controversy. two other declarations were filed on 13th august, i960,' and 26th march, 1963, but they were not attached to the returns. the appellate assistant commissioner accepted the declaration dated 26th march, 1963.the only declaration which is in controversy is the declaration dated 13th august, 1960, in respect of a gross turnover of rs. 4,73,242,31. if this declaration is accepted as valid, then the dealer is entitled to be taxed at the concessional rate of 1 per cent, under section 8(1)(b) of the act. if it is rejected, then,en the assessment would be at the rate of 7 per cent, under sub-section (2) of section 8 read with sub-section (4).the assessing authorities and the tribunal rejected the declaration dated 13th august, 1960 and held that the dealer was liable to pay tax at 7 per cent. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 1970 (HC)

L.K. Joshi and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-12-1970

Reported in : [1971]27STC481(Orissa)

..... clearly stated. in short, the facts are: initially the sales tax officer assessed the petitioner on a finding that there was an inter-state sale between the petitioner and jalaram trading company. the assistant commissioner of sales tax confirmed the finding that there was an inter-state sale but remanded the case to the sales tax officer for re-examination of ..... be canvassed anew before the sales tax officer on both the points. the sales tax officer has to determine whether at all the petitioner effected sale in favour of jalaram trading company and if there was such an inter-state sale, the quantum of tax payable.3. in the context of these events and historical background narrated hereinbefore, the question for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //