Orissa Court November 1955 Judgments
V.V. Kameswar Rao Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Ori99
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioner to Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or to Pass such other order quashing the orders of the Collector of Ganjam dated 1-7-52 dismissing the petitioner from service and to quash, the order No. 5018/46 dated 29-8-49 reducing the petitioner from his upper division rank to lower division and to declare that the petitioner continued in service from 26-10-51 till the date of his suspension and that the Petitioner is entitled to his salary of upper division clerk from 1-12-49 to 25-10-51 with the usual increments thereupon.2. The petitioner was appointed as a lower division clerk in the Ganjam Collectorate on 6-8-37 and was subsequently promoted to upper division clerk in the revised scale of 70-2-80-4-100 and was confirmed in that post in Collector's Despatch No. 5203/46 dated 5-7-46. The petitioner worked for three years as an Upper division clerk, but his confirmation as an upper division clerk was cancelled by the Coll...
Tag this Judgment!Bidyadhar Mohanty and anr. Vs. Ananta Hota and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Ori83; 22(1956)CLT112
Panigrahi, C. J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the suit lands.2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants agreed to sell 1.10 acres of land appertaining to Khata No. 94, in Plot No. 334/969 in Sambara Chaka in Mouza Anlapatta within the sub-division of Khandapara and received Rs. 300/- as consideration therefor. The defendants who took upon themselves the responsibility of executing a proper sale deed fraudulently inserted some other lands, which were of inferior quality, in the deed.The plaintiff therefore prays for a declaration of his title to the lands agreed to be sold, and for possession of the same. The sale deed was executed by the defendants on 9-10-1948. The fraud was discovered on 27-1-1949 when the plaintiff got the sale deed from the Registration office. Soon afterwards he filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises.3. The defend...
Tag this Judgment!Gunei Sahu and anr. Vs. the State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-21-1955
Reported in: 22(1956)CLT155; [1956]7STC217(Orissa)
Panigrahi, C.J.1. O.J.C. No. 375 of 1954 :-The petitioners are contractors under the Public Works Department and have been assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer, Puri, under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. Their case is that they undertook to do earth work for closing of 'Kalia Ghai' in Prachi left embankment. The final bill submitted by them shows that the work consisted, partly of earth work and partly of supply of rubbles and Sal Ballets. Obviously the supply of rubbles and Sal Ballas would constitute sale of goods, and it is liable to tax. Items 1 and 2 of the final bill, as would appear from the affidavit filed by the petitioners, show that much of the work consisted in placing earth upon the embankment, with a view to close the breach and in dressing and turfing it. The amount paid by the Department for these items comes, in the aggregate, to Rs. 41,000. It is pointed out on behalf of the opposite party by Mr. Mohanty that there is no specific statement, in the affidavit, that...
Tag this Judgment!Dandapani Panda Vs. D.F.O. Ghumsur and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-09-1955
Reported in: 22(1956)CLT158
Panigrahi, C. J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution questioning the validity of the order of opposite party 1 directing the petitioner to pay up the dues in respect of a contract executed by one Lakshminarayan Panda in favour of the opposite party. The facts are that Lakshminarayan Panda purchased Tilika Coupe No. II, Lot No. I of the Ghumsur South Division, at a public auction, and executed an agreement on 13-9-1949, in favour of the Government of Orissa through opposite party 1. The father of the petitioner (Maha-dev Panda) stood surety for the contractor. A sum of Rs. 3600/- having been outstanding against the contractor, the same is sought to be realised from the properties belonging to the petitioner who is the undivided son of Mahadev. Mahadev Panda died on 4-5-1950. A distress warrant was issued against the petitioner on 16-11-3954 for recovery of the amount outstanding against the contractor. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Forest Officer,...
Tag this Judgment!Harekrishna Das and anr. Vs. Jujesthi Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Ori73
Rao, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the confirming judgment of the District Judge of Cuttack dismissing the suit.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the disputed properties originally belonged to one Padmalav Panda who died leaving the mother of plaintiff 1 and plaintiff 2 as daughter and one Sadhu husband of defendant 4 as the only son; that Sadhu died in 1940 leaving a son Gopi and his widow defendant 4 but a year later, that is, in 1941 Gopi also died; that defendant 4 executed two sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 to 3 without any legal necessity or consideration; and that the suit is therefore filed for a declaration that the sale deeds are invalid and not binding on them. 3. The contention of defendants 1 to 3 is that mother of plaintiff 1 was not a daughter of Padmalav but was a daughter of a sister of Padmalav; that Padmalav had two brothers Kritibas and Lakshmidhar; that defendant 1 is the son of Kritibas and defendants 2 and 3 are the son and grands...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›