Orissa Court September 1954 Judgments
Gangadhar Rout and anr. Vs. Subhashini Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Ori135
Panigrahi, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a partition filed by Subhashini Devi, the widow of one Harimohan who died as an undivided member of a Hindu joint family consisting of himself and defendants 1 and 2 who are the appellants before us. Harimohan died in or about the year 1942. Items 13 to 18 of the properties mentioned in Schedule Ga attached to the plaint were purchased by defendants 1 and 2 under Exts. B to B-2 and Ex 2 between, the years 1943 to 1945.The appellants claimed that these items, which had been subsequently purchased, did not constitute the joint family property in which the plaintiff could claim a share as they were their self-acquisitions. The learned Subordinate Judge negatived this contention and gave a decree for partition in respect of all the properties, including the disputed items 13 to 18 of Schedule Ga.2. The only point that has been strenuously urged before us is whether these items are liable to be partitioned as joint family properties. Mr...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ranganayakamma Vs. S.R. Subudhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Ori20; 20(1954)CLT672
Narasimham, J. 1. These five civil revision petitions arise out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur as Small Cause Court Judge in five S. C. C. suits Nos. 80/51, 81/51, 82/51, 83/51 and 31/52. All the suits were tried analogously and disposed of in one judgment and similarly the five revision petitions were heard analogously and will be dealt with in one judgment. 2. The petitioner in all these revisions is one Srimati T. Ranganayakamma who was the owner of about 8.6 acres of land situated within the limits of Berhampur Municipality. She got the plot divided into several small house sites and after obtaining the approval of the Municipality advertised early in October, 1948 for the sale of those house sites by public auction to the highest bidder. The auction was held on the 10th and 11-10-1948 at the spot and 20 to 22 house sites were sold to the highest bidders. The opposite parties in these revisions had bid for some of the house sites and the bid was accepted b...
Tag this Judgment!The State (at the Instance of the S.D.M. Titiagarh) Vs. the Editor, Pr ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Ori36; 1955CriLJ547
Misra, J. 1. The present proceeding was started on the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Titlagarh, dated 7-11-53, against the Editor, Printers and Publishers of two Oriya newspapers, the Matrubhumi and the Ganatantra of Cuttack, and Sri. Muralidhar Panda, a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly. 2. It appears that a big reservoir had been built at Government cost at Dangarpara, P.S. Titlagarh, in the district of Bolangir. On 13-8-53 a F. I. R. was lodged at the police-station to the effect that on the previous night some persons had cut the Bundh of this reservoir as a result of which water had flowed out. The F.I.R. further stated that the lands of Satya Ganda, Lakpati Kumra, Jugi Kuer and Seetaram Bhoi, all of Dangarpara, had been submerged by the accumulation of surplus water in the reservoir; and it was suspected that the breach had been caused by one or all of the aforesaid persons. The police investigated into the matter and submitted a charge-sheet on 20-10-53 agains...
Tag this Judgment!A. Krishna Rao Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Ori65; 1955CriLJ823
Mohapatra, J.1. This petition has been filed by Sri A. Krishna Rao, a pleader practising in the Court of the District Judge of Cuttack, who was the opposite party in -- 'State of Orissa v. A. Krishna Rao', AIR 1955 Ori 46 (A) which was disposed of bya Special Beach of this Court the Judgment being dated 29-4-1954. That was a reference made by the District Judge of Cuttack under 3. 14, Legal Practitioners Act, in a proceeding against the, pleader, Sri A. Krishna Rao, for having committed an act which was grossly improper in the discharge of his professional duty,In the judgment D/- 29-4-1954, the Special Bench found the pleader clearly guilty of gross misconduct in the discharge of his professional duty and, as such, he is liable to disciplinary action under the Legal Practitioners Act. But on account of the reason that the pleader is an inexperienced junior lawyer an order of reprimand was thought adequate to meet the ends of justice. The Special Bench, however, ordered the pleader to ...
Tag this Judgment!Bansidhar Mohanti Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Ori1; 20(1954)CLT686; [1955]28ITR625(Orissa)
Narasimham, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, for a decision by this Court of the following question of law:'Whether on the above facts and circumstances of this case the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner not admitting the appeal which was admittedly barred by limitation was an order passed under Section 30(2), Income-tax Act or was an order passed under Section 31 of the Act.'2. The material facts are as follows:The assessee was assessed to income-tax for the year 1946-47 and the demand notice was served on him on 6-5-1948. He applied for a copy of theassessment order on 28-5-1948 and it was supplied to him on 9-6-1948.Under Section 30(2), Income-tax Act, he was entitled to file an appeal against the assessment order, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner within thirty days of the date of receipt of the notice of demand after excluding the time taken for obtaining a copy of the assessment order. Thus th...
Tag this Judgment!Lachminarayan Modi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Ori3; 22(1956)CLT25; [1955]28ITR322(Orissa)
Narasimham, J.1. This case was first heard by a Division Bench of this Court on 16-7-1952, which after discussing the various questions of law that were involved in the reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, directed the Tribunal to send a further statement of all the relevant facts for the purpose of enabling it to give a clear answer to the questions formulated in the original reference. The Tribunal has submitted a supplementary statement of facts along with the report of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on remand, and we have heard the Counsel for both sides not only on the new question that arose out of the additional statements submitted by the Tribunal but also on the questions which have been - fully dealt with in the previous judgment of this Bench.2. For the purpose of appreciating the various points involved the relevant facts may be recapitulated as follows. One Lachminarayan Modi was carrying on a partnership business ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankari Narasingulu Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-14-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Ori145; 21(1955)CLT24; 1955CriLJ1371
Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner (Sankari Narasingulu) stands convicted under Section 406, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Rupees 100 out of the fine has been' ordered to be paid to P. W. 1 if realised.2. The prosecution case is that on 12-7-51 P. W. 1 (Venkata Ratnamroa) borrowed a sum of lts. 800 from the accused and pledged her gold necklace weighing nearly twelve tolas and a half the accused. The accused gave to the complainant a chit scribed by himself in token of the pledge. The loan was to carry an interest of Rs. 18/- per cent per annum. On 6-7-52 in the afternoon, Venkata Ratnamma (P. W. 1) paid the entire dues of the accused (principal and interest) amounting to Rs. 944 and the accused on receipt of the money promised to return the gold necklace.P. W. 1 happens to be a coffee-keeper and the amount was paid in the coffee-hotel. The accused did not return the necklace. P. W. 1 therefore reported...
Tag this Judgment!Karini Raja Rao Vs. Karini Chiranjeevulu, Since Dead and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Ori17
P.V.B. Rao, J. 1. This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the reversing judgment of Shri K.K. Bose, Subordinate Judge, Berhampur in Title Appeal No. 64 of 1949. 2. The plaintiff and defendant No. 3 are the brothers of the deceased husband of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the registered sale deed Ext. G dated 15-11-46 for Rs. 1300/- executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of the suit property which fell to her share in the partition suit O. S. 501 of 1940 brought by her, on the death of her husband in the Court of the District Munsif of Berhampur, was not binding on the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and the entire body of reversioners. The plaintiff alleged that the sale was collusive and without legal necessity and that it was intended to defeat and defraud the claims of the reversioners. 3. The defendant No. 1 contended, denying all the allegations of fraud, collusion and absence of consideration that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shrilal Sagarmull Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1956Ori33; 21(1955)CLT317; [1955]28ITR837(Orissa)
Panigrahi, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, made by the, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench B, on a question of law formulated as follows : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the, case the notice issued to the assessee under Section 28(3) was valid, and if not, whether the order levying penalty on the basis of that notice is valid.'2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on business in grains, grocery and twists at Sambalpur. A notice under Section 22(2), Income, tat Act was served on the assessee on 31-5-43, but he failed to make a return of his total income, and the assessment was subsequently made under Section 23(4) on 11-1-44. The Income-tax Officer thereupon issued a notice under Section 28(3) on 10-1-44 calling upon the assessee to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed. The assessee submitted his explanation for his default, by' a petition dated 22-1-44, but did not appear before the Income-tax Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Gopasundar Sabatho and anr. Vs. Chunilal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Ori6; 1955CriLJ162
Mohapatra, J. 1. These two first appeals arise out of two suits Nos. M. S. 4 and 7 of 1948 instituted on 18-11-46 and 9-8-47 respectively. The suits were heard together and were covered by the same Judgment of the trial Court, Sri S.B. Satapathy, Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur, delivered on 15-12-48. First Appeal No. 35/49 arises out of M. S. No. 4/48 in which the plaintiffs Chunilal and Parameswarlal claim a total sum of Rs. 11,000/- constituted by the principal sum of Rs. 679/- plus interest of Rs. 2,342/- and house rent of Rs. 57/-, against defendant Gopasundar Sabatho on the allegations that plaintiffs 1 and 2, who are uterine brothers, and the defendant had dealings in salt on considerable scale and had mutual good-will.The plaintiffs have their shop at Berhampur while the defendant belonged to Nuapada where he had salt business on a very large scale. Defendant Sabatho wanted to carry on Jaggery business in Berhampur and he having no shop at Berhampur requested the plai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »