Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (3.09 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Orissa And Ors. vs Janamohan Das And Etc. Etc. on 8 January, 1993

Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2004

Mr. Das also cited the decision of a Division Bench of this court in State of Orissa v. Janamohan Das AIR 1993 Ori. 180 (Jhar), for proposition that no authority should be vested with unlimited or unfettered discretion. Mr. Das submitted that the petitioner presently has no income other than interest from the Fixed Deposits in different Banks and if the Fixed Deposits are encashed and appropriated by the Income-tax department, the petitioner will not be able to meet even its establishment expenses and the petitioner will suffer immense hardship. Mr. Das further submitted that the petitioner has not moved the Commissioner in revision because the nil assessments of the petitioner for different years have been reopened and the provisional attachment orders have been passed with the approval of the Commissioner and the revision before the Commissioner would be an exercise in futility. He further explained that although the petitioner has filed application for stay before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with the appeal, it is doubtful as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) would have powers to grant stay. In this regard, Mr. Das submitted that there is no express provision in the Act conferring powers on the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass an order of stay with regard to a matter in appeal before him whereas section 220(6) of the Act confers powers on the assessing officer to treat the assessee as not in default when the assessee has filed an appeal against the assessment.
Orissa High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 January, 2004

Mr. Das also cited the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Orissa v. Janamohan Das AIR 1993 On 180, for the proposition that no authority should be vested with unlimited or unfettered discretion. Mr. Das submitted that the petitioner presently has no income other than interest from the fixed deposits in different banks and if the fixed deposits are encashed and appropriated by the IT Department, the petitioner will not be able to meet even its establishment expenses and the petitioner will suffer immense hardship. Mr. Das further submitted that the petitioner has not moved the CIT in revision because the nil assessments of the petitioner for different years have been reopened and the provisional attachment orders have been passed with the approval of the CIT and the revision before the CIT would be an exercise in futility. He further explained that although the petitioner has filed application for stay before the CIT(A) along with the appeal, it is doubtful as to whether the CIT(A) would have powers to grant stay. In this regard, Mr. Das submitted that there is no express provision in the Act conferring powers on the CIT(A) to pass an order of stay with regard to a matter in appeal before him whereas Section 220(6) of the Act confers powers on the AO to treat the assessee as not in default when the assessee has filed an appeal against the assessment.
Orissa High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

P. Janardhan Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 24 January, 2003

11. Now, coming to the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General with respect to the law laid down by the Orissa Judgment (supra), he contends that the second part of the judgment would not apply to the present case because Justice B.K Somasekhara Commission had not been appointed on the directions of the High Court therefore no concurrence of High Court was necessary even if it is accepted that the law laid down by the Orissa High Court was correct. He submits that Supreme Court has in its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4138/2001 dated 13-7-2001 finally come to the conclusion that the Commission had been appointed by the Government on its own, the High Court had only recorded in its order the willingness of the State Government to appoint a Commission. Therefore, at no stage there was a direction by the High Court to appoint a Commission but the Commission had been appointed by the Government itself and the High Court had merely taken note of it and disposed of the Writ petitions in view of the willingness of the Government to appoint a Commission. Coming to the first part of the Orissa High Court judgment, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that directions cannot be given by the High Court to appoint a Commission and as a corollary to that if the High Court is powerless to give directions to government to appoint a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act the High Court should be equally powerless to examine the legality of exercise of power under Section 7 of the Act. He submits that in view of the judgments of various other High Courts and also the judgment of earlier Division Bench of this Court which was set aside by the Supreme Court, such direction could not be given. He submits that, even the Supreme Court did not set aside the finding of the High Court on the question of Court's power with regard to giving a direction for appointment of a Commission. He referred to para-9 of the Supreme Court judgment wherein the Supreme Court while referring to the findings of the Division Bench had said:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - B Nazki - Full Document

Peela Pothi Naidu And Ors. vs State Of A.P., Irrigation And Cad ... on 26 April, 2005

40. The learned Advocate General relies on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of State v. Janamohan Das, and also the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of D. Satyanarayana v. N.T. Rama Rao, (F.B.) and submits that the discretionary power conferred by Section 3 of the Act is not unfettered and hence the Government by exercising its unfettered powers under Section 3 of the Act revived the Commission. This Court does not find any reason to draw the support from the above citations in view of the fact that those cases are related to constitution of the Commission but not for revival of the Commission.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 54 - Cited by 3 - L N Reddy - Full Document

Meesa Varalakshmi vs Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes ... on 23 September, 1996

4. Either the court or the Tribunal would have the power to correct its own order when the outcome which is sought to be reversed was the product of a mistake committed by the court. Such power is inherent in the court or the Tribunal because of the larger principle that no one should suffer prejudice by the acts of a court. The power of recall was considered in detail in State of Orissa v. Janamohan Das, , where placing reliance on a decision in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, , the court distinguished between the power of recall and that of review and found that every court has the inherent power to recall its order if by any wrong done by it an injury is caused to a suitor. But the power is to be exercised, if not in the rarest of rare cases, only in exceptional cases. For such reasons we entertain the application and reverse the order impugned in the case and remand the matter to the first respondent for fresh adjudication as to whether the grievance raised by the petitioner is justified, calling for setting aside the ex parte order against her.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Ainul Haque on 26 March, 1993

4. A Bench of this Court had also occasion recently to examine in State of Orissa v. Janamohan Das, 75(1993) CLT 352. whether the power of recall is different from that of review, and after taking note principally of A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Naik, AIR 1988 SC 1531, it was recognised in paragraph 33 that the power of recall is distinguishable from the power of review. It was, however, stated that the power of recall has to be exercised in exceptional cases. Of course, that case dealt with the power of recall available in a writ proceeding.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B L Hansaria - Full Document
1