Orissa Court September 1951 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.
Shree Chand Agrawalla Vs. Bhagawan Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori85
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. Plaintiff and defendant are two businessmen. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 674-7-0 said to be due to him in respect of a contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant (Ex. C dated 13-10-1945) whereby the plaintiff was to supply to the defendant 200 bags of kulthi at Rs. 9/- per bag at Muri Bahal Railway Station. The plaintiff's case is that he supplied 175 bags in one instalment and received therefor only Rs. 400/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,175/- still due to him; and that so far as the remaining 25 bags were concerned he offered delivery in accordance with the contract, at a later date but that the defendant declined to accept delivery. According to him he subsequently received another sum of Rs. 521/- and hence the present suit for the balance due on these various accounts, which amounted to Rs. 654/- plus interest amounting to Rs. 20-7-0....
Orient Fast Colour Dye Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Ori293; 19(1953)CLT338
Narasimham, J.1. This is an application under Section 66 (2), Income-tax Act praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus on the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case for the decision of this Court.2. The material facts are these: The Orient Fast Colour Dye Works, Cuttack, is a partnership firm carrying on the business of dyeing cotton yarn. There were seventeen partners in the firm two of whom were Sri Nikunja Kishore Das and Sri Dhananjay Lenka. While assessing the said firm in respect of its income during the calendar year 1946 the Income-tax Officer included in the total profits a sum of Rs. 3249/- and Rs. 2437/- said to have been paid as remuneration to Sri Nikunja Kishore Das and Sri Dhananjay Lenka respectively. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax, maintained the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer and dismissed the plea taken by the petitioners to the effect that the said remuneration was paid to the said two partners not in their individual ...
Ratikanta Padhi and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Ori85
1. This appeal arises in execution of a mortgage decree and raises a question of limitation. The facts are as follows. The decree-holder is the appellant. The preliminary decree was passed on 4-1-39 against a father and his four sons. By the date of the final decree, the father, Chintamani died and one of the sons, Radha Charan also died. The decree-holder apparently was not aware of the latter's death. He obtained the final decree on 20-4-40, against the four sons, including the deceased Radha Charan who had died a few days prior thereto on 1-4-40. Thereafter the decree-holder applied in Execution Case No. 314/40 to execute the decree. Radha Charao's son, Harish Chandra intervened by an application under Section 47, C.P.C. in which he raised the objection that the final decree which was passed against his deceased father was not binding on him. The learned Munsif heard the objection in Misc. Case No. 98/41 and allowed it. He directed the execution to proceed only against the interests...
Khubchand Bansidhar Vs. Thandiram Ramchandra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori107; 18(1952)CLT218
Panigrahi, J.1. The decree-holder, who is the appellant before us, obtained a money decree in the year 1932 against the respondents-judgment-debtors. He sought execution of the decree and was resisted by the judgment-debtors on the ground that his petition was barred by limitation. The facts are these. In the year 1935, the judgment-debtors made an application, under Rule 11 of Order XX of the Civil P. C., praying for permission to pay the decretal dues in instalments. On 19-8-35 the executing Court passed an order in the following terms:'Connected records seen. Parties present, that is, the decree-holder through the Am Mukhtear and the judgment-debtors in person. They file a petition of compromise, the terms being that the ones of Rs. 3588/3/9 will be paid by the judgment-debtors in 18 annual instalments of Rs. 200/- the iast instalment being Rs. 188/3/9. The terms given in the petition of compromise are accepted.'In 1942 the decree-holder filed his first execution case for recovery o...
Parsuram Das and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori208; 18(1952)CLT58
Narasimham, J. 1. This miscellaneous case under Article 226 of the Constitution was started on a petition filed by thirteen persons who are now under detention in pursuance of various orders passed by the State Government in exercise of their powers under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV (4) of 1950) as amended by the amending Act of 1951 CAct IV (4) of 1951). In his judgment the former Act will be referred to as the old Act and the amending Act of 1951 will be referred to as the new Act. After the admission of this case, we were informed by the State Government that eleven of petitioners excluding Manmohan Misra and Banamali Das have already filed 'habeas corpus' petitions before the Supreme Court of India against their detention. In this case therefore we will deal with the detention of Monmohan Misra and Banamali Das only. As regards the remaining eleven petitioners we decline to pass any order because the validity of their detention is now under challenge before a superio...
Najib Mohammad and anr. Vs. Rahman Khan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori131
Panigrahi, J. 1. The suit culminating in this appeal was instituted by respondents 1 to 4 for a declaration that appellants 1 and 2 have acquired no title to the suit property by virtue of their purchase of the same, from the auction, purchasers at a revenue sale, and for confirmation, of possession, or, in alternative, for recovery of possession. The salient facts are simple and are undisputed. Touzi No. 4011 in Mouza Berhampur, in Cuttack District, bearing a Sadar Jema of Rs. 3/9/0, was recorded in the name of one Salim Khan and seven others in the Collector's registers. The plaintiffs' predecessors-in-title were some of the joint proprietors title under Section 11, Bengal Revenue Sales Act, 1859, (Arecorded in respect of a share of 5 annas in the touzi. Salim Khan himself owned 0-5-4 share, Sujat Khan 0-0-4 share, and Naliman Bibi and Mazahar Khan together 0-5-4 share. In the year 1932, a separate account was opened in the name of the plaintiffs' predecessors-in-ct XI of 1859), and ...
Jagannathram Gangaram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori352; 18(1952)CLT228
Ray, C.J.1. We are not satisfied that the statements in the case referred are sufficient to enable us to determine the question raised thereby. We are, therefore, referring the case back to the Appellate Tribunal to make amendments thereto by such additions or alterations as this Court is going to indicate in this behalf by this order. 2. I would, in this connexion, refer to paragraph 9 of the Tribunal's statement. It reads: '9. The question of law suggested by the High Court of Orissa is as follows: 'Whether there was sufficient evidence in the case to hold that the timber and yarn businesses have not severed from the joint Family assets?' Following the decision of the Bombay High Court in -- 'Jethabhai Hirji and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City' : [1949]17ITR533(Bom) and the observations of Sir George Rankin referred to in the High Court's order, we venture to suggest the following question: 'Whether there was evidence upon which it was open to the Appellate Tribunal t...
Baishnab Patnaik and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori60; 17(1951)CLT366
Narasimham, J. 1. These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against the detention of the petitioners under the Preventive Detention Act. We are informed that their case was referred to the Advisory Board constituted under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (4) of Article 22 of the Constitution and that the Board has recommended the continuance of their detention for the period as originally ordered. We are not concerned with the question about the adequacy of the grounds of their detention or the propriety of the order of detention. 2. Mr. Pasayat on behalf of the petitioners urged that two of the members of the Board, namely, Sri R.K. Rath and Sri R.C. Mitra did not possess the necessary qualifications for appointment as members of the Advisory Board as required by sub Clause (a) of Clause (4) of Article 22 and that consequently the Board was not validly constituted. That sub-clause says that a member of the Board should be a person qualified for appointment; as a Judge of a Hig...
Kshetramoni Samantray Mahapatra Vs. Satrughan Mall and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori129
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This appeal arises in execution of a rent-decree obtained by the respondent 1 against the appellant & respondents 2 to 9. The respondent 1 is the proprietor of 'Touzi No. 7204. The appellant & the respondents 2 to 9 are 'Macadams' under him in respect of a 'Mouza' included in that 'Touzi'. The decree under execution was for arrears of rent due in respect of the 'Makadami'. The 1st respondent had previously obtained another rent-decree for arrears of rent due for the years 1346 to 1348 in respect of the same 'Makadami' and put up the 'Makadami' tenure to sale in execution of that decree and purchased it himself on 26-6-43. The decree now under execution is in respect of arrears of rent due for the subsequent years 1348-1350, and the decree was obtained on 24-3-43, i.e., about three months prior to the execution sale under the earlier decree. In the present execution, the 1st respondent-landlord seeks to proceed against the personal properties of the appellant and res...
Marakanda Sahu Vs. Lal Sadananda Singh
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori279; 18(1952)CLT111
Narasimham, J.1. This revision is against an order dated 25-11-48 passed by the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur in Misc. case No. 14/ 1948 arising out of Title Suit No. 46/1944. The material facts are as follows :-2. The petitioner was the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 46/44 which on 16-3-48 was dismissed for default of the plaintiff. Then he filed a restoration petition under Order 9 Rules 8 and 9, C. P. C. This was registered as Misc. case No. 14/1948 and on 25-10-48 the Court after beingsatisfied that there was sufficient cause for the inability of the plaintiff to proceed with the suit on 16-3-1948, passed the following order :'This application for the restoration of the suit T. S. No. 46/44 will therefore be allowed if the plaintiff deposits the sum of Rs. 100/- towards the costs of the defendants within one month from this date failing which this application shall stand dismissed but without costs'.3. On 25-11-48 the following order was passed by the same court.'Plaintiff does not d...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »