Orissa Court January 1957 Judgments
New Orissa Transport Company Private Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Autho ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori121; 23(1957)CLT134
Narasimham, C.J.1. The petitioner is a private motor transport company which was formerly plying stage carriage vehicles on the Raj Athgarh-Narasinghpur route. The Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack, refused to renew its permit and granted the same to the State Transport Authority of Orissa, over the said route. These two petitions have been filed against this order and they are dealt with in one judgment.2. The facts which are either admitted, or are clear from the affidavits filed by the parties, may be shortly stated as follows:Eight permits of the petitioner for the aforesaid route were . renewed for a period of three years. The permits expired on the 30th September, 1956. On the 24th July, 1956 the petitioner made an application to the Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack, accompanied by the prescribed fee, for renewal of the permits for a further period of three years from 1st October; 1956 under Section 58 (2) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. On the 9th September, 1956, how...
Tag this Judgment!Haramani Devi and ors. Vs. Balaram Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori109; 23(1957)CLT152
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. This is an application by the defendant-respondents under Article 133 of the Constitution read with Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the reversing judgment of this Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a contract to sell.2. The agreement to sell was dated 7-12-42 and the price fixed in the agreement for the properties to be sold was Rs. 9,500. The suit was valued, for purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction, at this sum of Rs. 9,500 in accordance with Section 7(x)(a) of the Court-fees Act. At the request of the petitioners the matter was referred to the trial Court for submitting a report about the market value of the properties covered by the contract for sale, both at the time the suit was filed and at the time of the appeal. The lower Court submitted its report, according to which, it valued the property at Rs. 18,500 by the date of institution of the suit and at Rs. 15,00...
Tag this Judgment!Arta Rout Vs. Bhagabat Baral and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori157; 23(1957)CLT142
P.V.B. Rao, J. 1. The plaintiff files this appeal against the reversing judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Puri dismissing the suit fordeclaration of the title and confirmation of possession with regard to 1.64 acres of land situated in Apila. 2. The plaintiff's case is that in order the screen the properties from his creditors he executed a nominal sale deed (Ext. 1/a) in favour of his sister's son (defendant No. 2) who resides jn another village; that he continued to be in possession of the properties till the date of filing of the suit; that the sale deed executed by him was in his custody; that he was paying the rent due on the lands and that defendant No. 1 took a sale deed (Ext. B/1) of these properties from defendant No. 2 and was threatening to dispossess him. Hence he filed the suit for declaration of his title to the properties and for confirmation of possession. 3. Delendant No. 2 was ex parte in the case. He was also not examined by any party. Defendant No. 1 c...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Setti and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori190; 1957CriLJ988
Das, J.1. This is a petition by 11 accused persons against their conviction under Sections 448, 147 and 342, Indian Penal Code. At the time when this Revision came up for admission, this Court issued a rule to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners argued the matter as an appeal and questioned the legality of the conviction itself.2. All the accused persons were charged under Sections 147, 448. Indian Penal Code. Accused Chachak Setti, Kalpa Mohapatra, Radhu Setti, Bhim Setti. Hadibandhu Bag. Sadhu Bag, were also charged under Section 380, whereas accused Puma Chandra Mohanty, Bhagirathi Jena. Bhagaban Patra. Panu Naik and Lakshmi Setti were charged under Section 342. Indian Penal Code.3. The prosecution case was that the complainant who is a young lady had some trouble at the time of her husband's death with regard to the removing of his corpse, when the accused persons demanded certain sums o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Poddar Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori95; 23(1957)CLT300; 1957CriLJ529
ORDERNarasimham, C.J. 1. This is a revision against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack maintaining the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner, under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act for unlawful possession of 34 bags of capsules of the poppy. The said capsules were seized from his possession on 11th November 1954 by the Excise Sub-Inspector (P. W. 4).The seizure is admitted by the petitioner but it was urged on his behalf that the capsules werelanced and dried capsules from which the juice had been extracted and that possession of such capsules would not amount to an offence under the Opium Act. This question has been fully discussed by me in my judgment in Kashinath Poddar v. The State, Criminal Revn. No. 120 of 1956 : (AIR 1957 Orissa 93) (A), where I have held, after discussing the rules made under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1930, that there is no restriction on the possession of capsules of the poppy which are lanced and dried or from which the juice had b...
Tag this Judgment!Kasinath Poddar and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori93; 23(1957)CLT217; 1957CriLJ527
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This revision is against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack modifying the judgment of the trial court, but maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act (Act I of 1878) for unlawful possession of 32 bags of poppy capsules. The Excise Sub-Inspector of Dhenkanal (P. W. 4) seized the said 32 bags of capsules on the 19-1-1954 and sent some of the capsules to the Chemical Examiner, Calcutta, whose report (Ext. 2) was to the effect that they contained ingredients of opium. P. W. 4 further stated that all the seized capsules bore marks of incision indicating that the juice had been extracted, 2. The petitioners admitted the recovery of the capsules of the poppy from their possession but urged that possession of incised capsules from which the Juice had been extracted would not amount to an offence under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act. The lower appellate court, however, thought, relying on Jagjiwan Pitambar v. Emperor...
Tag this Judgment!V. Somanath Raju and anr. Vs. Konchada Ramamurty Subudhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori106; 23(1957)CLT159
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 3 and 4 against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur dated 31-10-1952. The facts giving rise to this appeal are: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1670-4-3 on the foot of a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 in his favour on 19-9-1945. The promissory note was executed for a sum of Rs. 1500/-. On the same day, that is, on 19-9-45, defendants 3 and 4 sent a letter of guarantee to the plaintiff assuring payment of the said sum with interest, on demand, in the event of default on the part of the principal debtors. Defendants 1 & 2 made certain payments towards the interest accrued on the promissory note, the aggregate amount of which came to Rs. 775-6-0, the last payment having been made on the 19-3-1948.Since the money, both principal and interest, due on the handnote was not paid by toe defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff demanded the sum due from all the defendants and on their failure fil...
Tag this Judgment!Salil Kumar Ghose Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori76; 23(1957)CLT149
Mohapatra, J.1. This first appeal is against the judgment dated 13th March 1951 of Sri D. N. Das, District Judge of Mayurbhanj, arising out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the amount of compensation awarded under Section 11 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Collector. There were two notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act and they were of the dates 23rd December 1947 and 26th June 1948. Under the notifications fifteen acres of land of the present appellant were compulsorily acquired. Out of the 15 acres, 1.90 acres have been made culturable, 13.10 acres are still lying waste & there exists a tank on an area .22 which is included within the aforesaid 15 acres. According to the appellant's version, the land was originally taken by him for business purposes.Poultry and goat breeding farm and Khala for purchase and sale of paddy and rice were started after putting up some structures and excavating a tank. A portion of the land was converted i...
Tag this Judgment!Pagla Baba and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori130; 23(1957)CLT88; 1957CriLJ769
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. These two appeals No. 85 by Pagla Raba and No. 97 by eight persons, namely, (1) Bairagi Cha-ran Das, (2) Achhebar Dubey, (3) Sidheswar Panda, (4) Chintamani Das, (5) Pitambar Das, (6) Khetramohan Das, (7) Fakir Charan Sahu and (8) Gadadhar Das were filed against the same Judgment and were heard together. All these nine accused persons, along with five others acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, were tried on charges under Sections 147, 302, 302/149, 333, 333/149, 332, 332/149, 148/109 and 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. All the accused persons were charged under Section 147, I. P. C. Accused Lakshman (acquitted) stood charged under Section 302, I. P. C. and all the other accused persons were charged under Section 302/149, I. P. C. Accused Bairagi, Fakir, Chintamani, Pitambar, Tarini, Khetramohan and Achhebar were charged under Section 333, I. P. C. The rest of the accused persons were charged thereunder read with Section 149, I. P. C. Accused Sidheswar was char...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›