Orissa Court November 1956 Judgments
Sankarsana Ramanuja Das Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ori96
Narasimham, C.J. 1. The petitioner is the holder of a pre-settlement minor mam in Ganjam District and he has challenged the validity of Notification No. 4971-XV-2154-E. A, dated 15-7-1905 of the Government of Orissa issued under Section 3(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), vesting the said minor mam in the State of Orissa. The challenge is made on the ground that a pre-settlement minor inam does not come within the definition of the expression 'estate' as given in Section 2(g) of the Act and that consequently the Government of Orissa have no jurisdiction to issue a Notification under Section 3(1) of the Act in respect of this inam.2. The Act was introduced as a Bill in the Orissa Legislative Assembly on 17-1-1950 and was passed by the Assembly on 28-9-1951. The Governor of Orissa reserved it for the consideration of the President who gave his assent on 23-1-1952. Since then the Act has undergone several amendments, b...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanashyam Misra Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ori78; 1957CriLJ469
Narasimham, C.J.1. This revision petition is filed against the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Cuttack, maintaining the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Dhenkanal, for an offence under Section 376, I. P. C. At the time of the admission of this revision petition a rule was issued on the petitioner to show cause why the sentence may not be enhanced, and he was given full opportunity to argue against his conviction as well.2. The petitioner was working as a Teacher in the M. E. School at Rainarusinghpur in Dhenkanal District in October, 1954. It was alleged that on the 4th October 1954 at about noon he committed rape on a girl student of the school, named Nalini Kumari Dei (P. W. 4) aged ten years inside the school premises. Soon after committing rape he was said to have given her two anna pieces for purchasing sweets and cautioned her not to reveal the incident to anybody.The girl sustained an injury to her private...
Tag this Judgment!Baluni Dei Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ori69; 23(1957)CLT50; 1957CriLJ468
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Cuttack, made under the foflowing circumstances.2. One Baluni Dei filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dhenkanal (Sadr), alleging that Shri Kiren Ghosh, Assistant Surgeon in charge of the Sadr Hospital at Dhenkanal, had assaulted her husband on 17-6-55 while he was a patient in the hospital, & has also abused him. It appears that her husband was an in-patient in the hospital in connection with some operation to his private parts. She alleged that the Assistant Surgeon slapped her husband, made some taunting remarks, and after taking him to the operation, theatre further assaulted him in consequence of which the patient screamed aloud, but the doctor roughly handled his testicles. The Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the following order on that complaint:'This is a complaint against a gazetted government servant for something done in the course of his official duty. Let the complainant get the sanction fr...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Indian Chemical Products Ltd. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ori203
P.V.B. Rao, J. 1. This is an application filed by the State of Orissa through the Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Finance Department under Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act (Act VII of 1913) praying to order that the register of members of the Company (The Indian Chemical Products Limited). opposite party No. I be rectified by inserting therein the name of the petitioner as the holder of 7500 fully paid up shares in the company being shares Nos. 1 to 7500, Scrip No. 12, in the place of opposite party No. 2. the Maharaja of Mayurbhanj. 2. According to the petitioner's allegations, the Indian Chemical Products Ltd., which will hereafter be referred to as the Company, was incorporated on 29-11-47 as a company Limited by shares with its registered office at Baripada, District Mayurbhanj now in Orissa. The capital of the Company is Rs. 25,00,000/- divided into 25,000 shares of Rs. 100/- each and according to the balance sheet of the Company filed by the Registrar of joint Stock ...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ori74
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Lower Division assistant in the Orissa Secretariat, against the order of the Chief Secretary dated 7-2-1955, dismissing him from Government service.2. On the 24-7-1954 the petitioner was placed under suspension and the following two charges were framed against him:'(1) On 17-7-1954 you disobeyed the official orders of Shri B. C. Mathur, I. A. S. Under-Secretary, Cabinet (Planning) Department to work beyond office hours to attend to urgent and immediate work, in contravention of Rule 12(a) of the Secretariat Instructions.(2) On 17-7-1954 you behaved insolently with Shri B. C. Mathur, I. A. S. Under-Secretary, Cabinet (Planning) Department which amount to gross insubordination'.It would appear from Annexure B filed by the State of Orissa that the proceedings against the petitioner were drawn up by Mr. J. A. Dave, Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Cabinet (Planning) Department Under the orders of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Deo Vs. Collector of Koraput and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ori263
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the ex-proprietor of Jeypore Estate in Koraput district, against the order of the Government of Orissa, calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 11,64,497-6-10 being his share of the costs of survey and settlement operations that took place in Jaypore estate during the period when the petitioner and his predecessor in interest were the proprietors of the Estate.2. The petitioner's adoptive father, Maharaja Shri Vikrama Deo Verma was the proprietor of Jeypore estate till his death on the 15th April, 1951. The petitioner succeeded to the estate and remained as proprietor until the taking over of the estate by the State of Orissa under Section 3 (1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act 1051 (Orissa Act I of 1952), on the 29th December 1952.Survey and settlement operations under the provisions of chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act. 1908 (Madras Act I of 1908) had commenced in Jaypore Estate as early as 1941 an...
Tag this Judgment!Jaladhar Sahu Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ori39; 23(1957)CLT1; 1957CriLJ384
Narasimham, C.J. 1. The question referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court is: 'Whether a confession made to an Excise Officer exercising the powers of a Police Officer is a confession made to a Police Officer and is not admissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evi. Act.' The referring Bench noticed the conflict of decisions of the various High Courts on this question and thought that it should be definitely settled once for all, so far as this Court and the Courts subordinate to it are concerned. ' In is Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in Radhakishun Marwari v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Pat 293 (SB) (A) it was held that an Excise Officer exercising powers under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act read with the Dangerous Drugs Act, was not a ''Police Officer' and that a confession made to him by an accused person was therefore admissible in evidence not being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. There was an earlier Full Bench decision of the Bombay High ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mahendranath Dutta and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ori49
Mohapatra, J.1. It will be convenient to take up both the cases together. They were heard together as they aross out of the same incident. This Judgment of ours should cover both the cases which arise out of proceedings under the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1379 for the professional misconduct of two lawyers who usually practise in the Munsiff's Court at Jajpur. The circumstances giving rise to the cases are as follows:2. In Execution Case No. 97 of 1953 of the Munsiff of Jajpur Durjyodhan Pati was the decree-holder and Muralidhar Kar was the judgment-debtor. Sri Mahendranath Dutta and Sri Narendranth Sen, Pleaders of the Munsif Court at Jaipur, represented the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor respectively. The decretal amount was to be paid in four instalments. The three previous instalments having been paid in time, the fourth was payable on 14-11-1954.There being a default, the sale in execution of the decree took place on 15-11-1954 which covered the homestead o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Kar and ors. Vs. Rajendranarayan Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Ori104; 23(1957)CLT40
Mohapatra, J. 1. Both those appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 12-11-1951 of Sri K.C. Mahapatra, 1st Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack. They have been heard together and will be covered by this judgment of ours. 2. Both these appeals arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs under Section 64 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act for a declaration that the deity Sri Hanuman Jew situate in the heart of the town of Cuttack is a family deity of the plaintiffs and pro forma defendant. No. 7 and that the temple in which the deity is situate is an excepted temple. Defendants 1 to 5 represent the public and defendant No. 6 is the Endowment Commissioner. Second Appeal No. 69/52 has been filed, by the members of the public and Second Appeal No. 108/52 has been filed by the Commissioner oi Endowments. It is to be noted here that the plaintiff-respondents filed a petition for amendment of their plaint to delete the prayer for declaration of the temple as being an excepte...
Tag this Judgment!Braja Kishore Dikshit Vs. Purna Chandra Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-09-1956
Reported in: 23(1957)CLT195
Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 against the concurrent Judgments of both the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum. of Rs. 1,047 from defendant No. 1 on the foot of a handnote dated 4-1-46 (Ex. 1). This handnote was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 died during the pendency of the appeal in the Court below and his widow, Mst. Rohini Pandiani, was impleaded as respondent No. 2. Defendant No. 1 is the son-in-law of an agnate of defendant No. 2.The plaintiff's case was that defendant No. 1 borrowed the sum of Rs. 900 from defendant No. 2 on 4-1-46 and executed the suit-pronote promising to pay on demand. Defendant No. 2 subsequently endorsed this Ex. 1 in favour of his son on 6-9-48 (Ex. 1-A). As defendant No. 1 failed to pay in spite of repeated demands, plaintiff filed the present suit. Defendant No. 2 though served with notice di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »