Orissa Court September 1950 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bansidhar Patnaik and ors. Vs. Province of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori84
Ray, C.J.1. The petitioners seek review of the orders of the Court below convicting them under Sections 145 and 188, Penal Code, for having violated an order under Schedule 44, Criminal P. C., promulgated by the Magistrate and having failed to disperse the unlawful assembly after having been commanded to do so.2. The petitioners' contention is that the prosecution under Schedule 88, Penal Code, is bad in law as no complaint was filed by the public authority concerned according to the provisions of Schedule 95, Criminal P. C. Secondly, that the trial, being bad in law as to Schedule 88, Penal Code, is bad in its entirety.3. These contentions are sought to be met by the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the State, in two ways: (i) that the offence under. Schedule 88, Penal Code, has bean declared cognisable under Schedule 0, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and hence compliance with Section 195, Criminal P. C. is not necessary; and (ii) that even if the trial be bad with regard to...
Chaitan Senapati Vs. Mani Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Ori113
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. This is a Court-fee reference coming before me as the Taxing Judge on a reference made by the taxing officer. The question is as to the proper Court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal. The facts giving rise to this reference may be stated as follows in the wording of the taxing officer: Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 brought a suit for partition of some properties described in Schedules Kha, Ga, Gha and Una of the plaint, into 3 equal snares and for possession of one-third share therein along with defendant No. 4. With respect to the shares of the parties and also with regard to the division of the joint family properties into 3 shares giving to plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendant 4 one-third share, defendant 1 one-third share, and defendant 2 one-third share, there was absolutely no dispute. The real controversy in the suit centred round the properties to be actually divided. The appellant-defendant 1 contended that items Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of Schedule Ga proper...
Nilmoni Hota Vs. Govinda Chandra Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori233; 16(1950)CLT245
Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal raises a point of some novelty but not of difficulty. The facts necessary to be stated are that the father of the deft-applt was the owner of two-thirds share in touzi No. 1075 & this two-third share was recorded in the registers of the Collectorate as touzi No. 5989. He had also purchased 3.28 acres of lands appertaining to holding Nos. 34 and 35 (which are the subject matter of the suit) by sale deeds, Ex. A - series of the years 1895, 1906, 1907 & 1909. These lands were acquired by purchase from. tenants who had occupancy rights therein. The deft was recorded in the Current Settlement Register as holding these lands under Schedule 6 (2), Orissa Tenancy Act. Touzi No. 5989 was put up for sale by the Collector for realising arrear of land revenue on 24-10-40 & was purchased by the pltf. The pltf took delivery of the same through the revenue Ct on 19-1-42. In Nov 1943 he instituted a suit alleging dispossession by the deft-applt in Dec 1942. The pltf's case ...
Malla Sasirekhamma Vs. Garbham Suramma
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Ori163
Panigrahi, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are simple. The plaintiff-appellant purchased the suit house by a registered deed of sale dated 26-4-44 from one Kesava Rao, at a time when the suit house was in the occupation of two tenants. One of them is the respondent in this appeal. The other tenant, Appa Rao, attorned to the plaintiff and executed a fresh agreement of tenancy with him. The respondent, however, resisted the plaintiff's claim for possession alleging that the sale relied on by the plaintiff was a collusive transaction and that she (the respondent) was actually in possession of the house in pursuance of an agreement to sell Ex. A dated 11-12-43 executed by Krishnamurti, the father of Kesava Rao, in favour of the respondent's husband. It is alleged that Kesava Rao, ignoring this contract with the respondent's husband, sold the suit house to the plaintiff and directed both the tenants to attorn to his vendee. The plaintiff also issued registered notices on the ...
Raghunath Patnaik Vs. State Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori81; 16(1950)CLT202
Narasimham, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an order dated 27-7-50 passed by the Chairman, State Transport Authority while purporting to decide an appeal Under Section 64, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Puri, granting a permit for stage carriage on the route from Banpur to Berhampur to the petitioner Sri Raghunath Patnaik. The said route lies in the districts of Puri and Ganjam but a major portion of the route lies in the latter district. On 16-4-49 the R. T. A., Ganjam gave a permit for stage carriage on the said route to the opposite party Somanath Patro, On the same day, the R. T. A., Puri granted a stage carriage permit conditionally to the petitioner, Sri Raghunath Patnaik, the condition being that his vehicle should be inspected and certified by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. On 16-7-1949 the R. T. A., Puri after perusing the fitness certificate iss...
Bana Behera and ors. Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori261; 17(1951)CLT7
Ray, C.J.1. Tais is an appln. by the accused persons under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution invoking our jurisdiction to certify that the criminal case in which they have been convicted is a fit one for appeal to the S. C. The learned counsel, in substance argues that the subtleties that once arose for consideration in the matter of special leave to appeal in criminal cases to the P. C. ought not to arise in the case of leave to appeal to the S. C. His contention is that unlike the Judicial Committee of the P.C, the S. C is a Ct. of Appeal within the meaning of the said Article 134(1) (a) & (b). Under the circumstances, he would argue that more liberalised consideration ought to apply.2. Bound as we are by the decisions of the S. C. in this matter, we cannot find our way to concede to this contention. We should invite attention to a recent decision of the S. C. in the case of Pratims Singh v. The State, A I. R. (37) 1950 S. C. 169 : (51 Cr. L. J. 1870). There Fazl Ali J, while agr...
Kunja Atabudhi Vs. Bhagabat Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1953Ori103
Ray, C.J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of .05 of an acre homestead land. The homestead admittedly belonged to Bhagabat and Sanatan, two brothers. Bhagabat is defendant 1, Sanatan defendant 2 and plaintiff's brother Lachhman's grandson otherwise known as grand nephew of Bhagabat defendant 3 in the suit, Plaintiff claims to have acquired both the shares of Sanatan and Bhagabat by purchase. Purchase from Sanatan was effected according to the plaintiff orally accompanied with delivery of possession. With regard to Bhagabat, it is stated that Bhagabat's wife named Gouri during Bhagabat's absence sold the entire homestead to one Damodar. It is the plaintiff who induced Bhagabat who was living at a far off place, namely, Sambalpur, to institute a suit to recover the property. He was ultimately persuaded to appoint plaintiff's younger brother Lachhman as his authorised agent for conduct of the same. It is stated that plaintif...
ismail and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori86; 16(1950)CLT209
Narasimham, J.1. These four petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against certain orders of the District Magistrate of Kalahandi directing the internment of the petitioners within the limits of Nawapara sub-division of that district in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2, Orissa Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1948.2. Petitioner Ismail is the son of the petitioner Khan Sahib Adam Hazi Saleh Mohammed and the family have extensive business with headquarters in Nawapara sub-division. They have also extensive agricultural lands in that sub-division. Affidavits were filed on their behalf to the effect that they were nationals of the Indian Union and in the counter affidavit filed by the Government this citizenship was not challenged and we would therefore take it as well, established that the two petitioners are citizens of the Indian Union. On 17-7-49 the then District Magistrate of Sambalpur, (within whose jurisd...
Sankar Patra Vs. Debidayal Singh and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Ori111; 17(1951)CLT164
Ray, C.J.1. This is a plff's. second appeal in a suit for setting aside an ex parte decree & the sale held thereunder on circumstances stated briefly herein below:2. The plff. is one of the two sons of Fanchu Patra. Panchu's other son is deft. 2. After the death of Panchu while the plff. & deft. 2 were living jointly (as concurrently found by the Courts below) on 2-3-1944, deft. 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 200/- from deft. 1. The latter instituted a S. C. C. Suit No. 130 of 1945, in the Court, of the 1st Additional Munsiff of Cuttack against the plff. & deft. 2. In the S. C. C. suit plff. was deft. 2 & deft. 2 of this suit was deft. 1. The plff. was minor then & is a minor even now; in the present suit he has been represented by his mother as next friend. Deft. 2 is his step brother being Panchu's son by his predeceased wife. As required under O. 32, R. 3, it was necessary that the procedure for service of notice about the proposed guardian of the minor should have been followed in full bu...
Chintamoni Palai Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Ori167
ORDERRay, C.J.1. This is an application for transfer of a criminal case pending in the Court of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Russelkonda. The petition was filed in this Court on the 6th of February and was moved on the 7th of February, after due notice, to the Government Advocate. Mr. Dube, the then Government-Advocate, appeared and wanted time in order to get instructions for opposition. He, however, agreed that in the meantime interim order of stay of further proceedings in the Magistrate's Court should be passed. An order was passed according,, and was duty communicated to the District Magistrate of Ganjam, and to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Russelkonda for necessary action. The order was received by them on the 9th February. The next date of hearing that was fixed in the case was 13th February. By that time the learned Stationary Sub-Magistrate was in possession of a telegram from the learned Government Advocate, dated 6-2-1950, intimating that the High Court had been moved ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »