Orissa Court December 1952 Judgments
The State of Orissa Vs. Minaketan Patnaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori160
Jagannadha Das, C.J. 1. This is as application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court in Government Appeal No. 3 of 1951.* One Sri Minaketan Patnaik, Civil Supplies Officer, Belangir, was prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 161, Penal Code, by accepting a sum of Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification from one Purushotlam who was examined as P. W. I. The trial court disbelieved the oral evidence given in support of the prosecution case and acquitted the accused. As against that acquittal, the State Govt. filed an appeal to this Court. It was heard by my learned brothers, Panigrahi and Narasimham, JJ. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed by this Court. It is against that dismissal that this application for leave to appeal is made by the State. 2. The case for the prosecution very shortly stated was as follows: P. W. 1 is the purchasing agent of the firm of Shivashankar Tricumjee. The accused on two occasions, once on 25-1-1950, and ag...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Pati and anr. Vs. Damodar Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori179
Panigrahi, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3700/- on two promissory notes, dated 9-6-1941 and 18-3-1941 for Rs. 3000/- each. The suit promissory notes were executed by defendant 1 Damodar Sahu, who was admittedly the manager o the Hindu joint family consisting of himself and the other defendants. He also held a power of attorney, executed by the other members of the family, and was given certain well-defined powers. The suit was filed on 22-1-1946 and the plaintiff relied upon two endorsements of payment made on each of the promissory notes, to save limitation. These endorsements were made on 1-1-1942 and 24-1-1943 by defendant 1 on the hand-notes (which are marked as Exs. 2 and 3) the endorsements being marked as 2A, 2B, 3A and3B respectively. Defendant 4, 10 and 11 contested the suit. The other defendants were ex parte. Defendant 1 did not file any written statement though he appeared in Court. The plea urged on behalf of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Kishore Naik Vs. Sukti Dibya and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori240; 19(1953)CLT44
Mohapatra, J.1. This second appeal is against the confirming judgment dated 30-1-48 of Sri C.C. Coari, District Judge of Cuttack, in M. A. 124 of 1946. It is defendant 1 who is the appellant in this second appeal.2. The plaintiff (Narasingha Chandra Panda), Dibyasingha (the deceased husband of defendant 2) and Babaji were three brothers. Babaji died long ago leaving no heirs. Dibyasingha died on 20-4-34. Defendant 2, the widow of Dibyasingha, executed a deed of sale in favour of defendant 1, the appellant, on 16-2-44. The plaintiff's present suit is on the allegation that Dibyasingha died in a state of jointness with him, and as such, plaintiff is the sole surviving coparcener, and defendant 2 had no right, title or interest whatsoever in respect of the property to execute a valid deed of transfer in favour of defendant 1. So he prays for declaration of title and for confirmation of possession, or in the alternative, for recovery of possession.3. The defence is that there was separatio...
Tag this Judgment!Godavaris Misra Vs. Nandakisore Das, Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assem ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori111
Narasimham, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Sri Godavaris Misra, a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, against Sri Naudakisore DAS, Speaker of that Assembly.2. On 5-9-52 the petitioner sent notice of the following question to the Secretary, Orissa Legislative Assembly. 'Will the Government be pleased to state(a) Whether the house occupied by Sri L.M. Patnaik, when he was Speaker of this Assembly, was a Government or private building and, if the latter, how it was acquired to serve as the residence of the Speaker;(b) Whether it is occupied now by the present Speaker or by Sri L.M. Patnaik and, in either case, whether or not, it is so occupied free of rent; and(c) if rent has been paid for the occupation of the house the period for which it has been so paid by the present occupier and the rent, if any, which Government are paying in respect of it to the proprietor?' On 6-9-52 he sent notice of another question.'Wiil the Government be pleased to sta...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadindra Kumar and ors. Vs. Revenue Commr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori117
Narasimham, J. 1. This Special Bench was constituted to hear the preliminary question as to whether the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in--'Sri Rama Chandra v. Collector of Agricultural Income-tax', AIR 1962 Orissa 281 (A) regarding the construction of the words 'an order under Section 28 enhancing an assessment or otherwise prejudicial to him' occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 29, Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, requires revision in view of the decision of the Privy Council in--'Commr. of Income-tax West Punjab, North West Frontier and Delhi Provinces, Lahore v. Tribune Trust Lahore', AIR 1943 P. C. 102 (B) which unfortunately was not cited before the said Division Bench of this Court. 2. The petitioner was assessed to agricultural income-tax by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Balasore. He appealed against the assessment to the Collector of Agricultural Income-tax under Section 25, Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act. The Collector gave him partial relief and...
Tag this Judgment!Kalinga Tubes Ltd. and ors. Vs. D. Suri and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Ori153
Jagannadha Das, C.J.1. These applications were previously heard on the 21st and 22nd of October and we pronounced orders on 27-10-52 (See AIR 1953 Orissa 49) granting to the applicants one of the prayers which they made in their applications viz., a direction for the issue of copies of certain documents, which the learned Magistrate held the applicants not to be entitled to. We felt that in the light of the additional material that may be available to the applicants on getting those copies it would be desirable to hear further arguments with reference to the legality of the searches which was the second question that was raised. We accordingly directed that the applications should be posted for further hearing. They have therefore come up again before us and we proceed to consider the question of the legality of the searches.2. It is necessary to note at the outset that when the applications were first heard on the 21st October, the advocate for the petitioners sought to put forward an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›