Orissa Court November 1952 Judgments
Gadadhar Ramanuj Das Vs. Collector of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori283; 19(1953)CLT76
Jagannadhadas, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 29 (3), Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act for a direction to the Member, Board of Revenue, Commercial Taxes, to state a case and refer the same to this Court. It arises under the following circumstances : The applicant has been assessed to agricultural income-tax for the year 1948-49 as an individual. Notice was issued in respect of assessment for the year 1949-50 also on the same basis. A return of income appears to have been submitted by him as an individual admitting an income of nearly three lakhs.But at the time of the actual assessment by the agricultural income-tax officer, he claimed, a deduction in respect of about Rs. 87,000/- under Section 8, Agricultural Income-tax Act on the ground that he held certain of the properties whose income had been included in the return as trustee for the deity Lord Jagannatha of Puri, as Amrutmanohi. In support of his claim for deduction, he produced an order of the Commissioner of Hin...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shri Shyam Sundar Misra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori64
Jagannadhadas, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 14, Legal Practitioners' Act, against a pleader of Sonepur, made by the District Magistrate of Bolangir, through the Sessions Judge of the District. It arises out of a petition dated 22-1-51 sent to the District Magistrate by the pleader on behalf of the petitioners therein. That petition arose out of a criminal case in the following circumstances. There appears to have been a dacoity in the house of one Bhagirathi Gountia of Bhowanipalli, P. S. Binka, on 20-7-50. In the course of the investigation into that case under Section 395, Penal Code one Karu Khutla and ten others were suspected of being involved in the dacoity. They were accordingly arrested and made accused in that case. After a series of remands the police submitted a final report of the investigation recording that the case was true but that there was not sufficient evidence to place the accused on trial. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, thereupon, by his order dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!Anem Shiva Parvatamma Vs. Akasam Bayanna
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori89; 19(1953)CLT121
ORDERPanigrahi, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, calling upon the plaintiff to pay additional court-fee, amounting to Rs. 1864-1-0, and making it a condition precedent to the passing of a final decree.2. The plaintiff sued the defendant on the allegation that she had purchased the suit properties in the name of the defendant who is related to her, and that she was in possession in her own right as the purchaser of the equity of redemption. She made a further allegation that the defendant refused to execute a proper conveyance transferring the title to the plaintiff. The prayer in the suit was, therefore, for a direction to the defendant to execute a proper conveyance and also for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession. The relief for execution of the deed of conveyance and the one for injunction were respectively valued at Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 1300/-. The plaintiff however claimed an alter...
Tag this Judgment!Arjuna Padhana Vs. Nakula Choudhury
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori75; 19(1953)CLT185
ORDERPanigrahi, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the District Judge, Ganjam-Nayagarh, affirming an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, in Misc. Case 1 of 1949, arising out of Money Suit No. 1 of 1948 on his file. Nakula Choudhury, the opposite party herein, filed a suit for the recovery of some money from the petitioner (defendant) after dissolution of the partnership that had been entered into between him and the defendant. When the trial of the suit was going on the parties referred their disputes to arbitration by five gentlemen, by an agreement dated 30-8-1948. The Court referred the matter to the arbitrators nominated by the parties. The reference was in these terms: 'We appoint the following five respectable men as 'punchayetdars', and the means of the gentlemen are given below. The second paragraph of the agreement says that'the arbitrators shall take evidence from the plaintiff and the defendant on 5-9-1948 and determine the extent of the lia...
Tag this Judgment!Madhabananda Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Rabindranath Misra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Ori40; 19(1953)CLT316
Panigrahi, J.1. This is a second appeal by some of the alienees from defendant 16 Abala Dibya, the widow oF one Kulamoni Pauigrahi who died on 18-5-1929. The plaintiff Indumati, claimed to be his daughter by his first wife Gurubari and sued for a declaration that the alienations made by defendant 18 in favour of the other defendants are not binding upon her reversionary interest as those alienations had not been made for legal necessity. All the defendants challenged the plaintiff's claim to have been the daughter of Kulamoni, and their allegation was that she was the daughter of Jadumoni Panigrahi, the natural brother of Kulamoni who had admittedly gone away in adoption to one Nidhi Panigrahi.2. The two important issues framed in the suit were issue No. 2: 'Is the plaintiff, as alleged in the plaint, the daughter of Kulamoni?' and issue no. 10 : 'Was there any legal necessity for the kabalas and are the kabalas genuine and for consideration?' The learned Munsif who tried the suit in t...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Mala Devi Vs. Priyamoni Devi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori87
ORDERPanigrahi, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 115, Civil P. C. seeking to have an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 133 of 1951, set aside. The petitioner filed a suit against her sister for setting aside a partition deed brought about on 19-7-51 dividing the properties lett by their father who had died sometime prior to that dale leaving his widow, the mother of the present parties, as his then surviving heir. The plaintiff's mother died in June 1950 and the partition deed which is impugned in the suit was executed on 19-7-51 at the house of the plaintiff's father where defendant 1 is said to be living with her husband. According to the deed of partition the plaintiff has been given one acre and odd of land in village Mantripada and 14 acres and odd of land in Mayurbhanj district, whereas opposite party 1 gets 61 acres and odd of lands at Mantripada. The plaintiff filed a petition to allow her sue In forma pauperis on the ground that she was no...
Tag this Judgment!Gourhari Rice Mill Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Ori94; 19(1953)CLT216
Narasimham, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 66(2), Indian Income-tax Act requesting the Court to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, to state a case under the following circumstances.2. The petitioner is an unregistered firm carrying on the business of milling rice in its factory situated in Nilgiri State (now merged in the district of Balasore) and exporting the same for sale to various places in the territories which were formerly known as British India. For the assessment year 1943-44 the firm was assessed to income-tax as a non-resident through its admitted agent Jashbant Bhol who was a resident of village Angula, P. S. Soro, in Balasore district. Even before the Income-tax Officer the petitioner objected to the assessment on the ground that the entire profits of the business accrued or arose in Nilgiri State which then did not form part of British India and was consequently exempt from assessment. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was assessed to incom...
Tag this Judgment!Makbul and ors. Vs. Dinabandhu Gajendra Mohapatra, Plaintiff and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori76
Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's occupancy right in 2.36 acres and 7 kadis of land appurtaining to Current Settlement Plot No. 1725, of touzi No. 1434 in Mouza Ratalang. The land was formed by gradual accretions from the bed of the river Knar-Kadi during the last fifteen years and it was found fit for cultivation about five years ago. Plot No. 1725 is recorded as Anabadi river belonging to the landlord, defendant 11. It is admitted that the plaintiff owns his occupancy holdings on the bank of the river and they are recorded as plots Nos. 1725/2548, 1725/2559 and 1729. These plots adjoin the newly formed land to the south, and consequently the accretions from the river bed to the plaintiff's plots are being enjoyed by the plaintiff as a part of his occupancy holdings. In the year 1945, defendants 1 to 10 claiming to be lessees from defendant 11, disturbed the possession of the plaintiff and that gave rise to this litigation. The defen...
Tag this Judgment!Managobinda Panda Vs. Srimat Paramahansa Paribrajakacharja Sankar Shri ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori151; 19(1953)CLT265
Panigrahi, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff, who is the Superintendent of the Deity Shri Lokenath Deb at Puri has the right of offering pangthi-bhog to the Thakur on Kanyachori Day. The plaintiff also claimed damages owing to loss sustained by him on account of the defendant's refusal to accept the bhog offered by him on 30-5-41 when the deity was being taken out in procession on that occasion.2. The admitted facts are that defendant 1 who is a sebak of the deity had his turn of seba on that day and that the deities Hara and Parbati were taken out of the temple on procession. It is further admitted that panthi bhog is offered by devotees at certain places as the deities go out in procession through the streets. When the procession reached a little distance from the plaintiff's math defendants 2 to 4 at the instigation of defendant 1 removed the deities from the palanquin and went away declining to take the deities, to the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›