Orissa Court October 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhajan Jena Vs. Panchu Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ori246; 24(1958)CLT36
P.V. Balakrishna Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit for a declaration of his title to, and recovery of possession of, the suit properties. These properties were conveyed by his deceased brother to defendants 1 to 4 who are members of a joint Hindu family, defendants 1 to 3 being brothers and defendant 4 being their nephew. The sale deed was dated 22-1-49. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal the suit was dismissed. Against that the plaintiff filed this Second AppealDuring the pendency of this appeal, respondent No. 3, one of the joint brothers, died and his legal representatives were not brought on record in time. An, application was filed after the time to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 3 along with a petition for condoning the delay in filing the application. By an order dated 17-9-57 the said petitions were rejected and an order was passed that the appeal abated as against the deceased respondent No. 3.2. Mr. C...
Raghunath Prusti Vs. SauddIn Khan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ori111; 24(1958)CLT28
ORDERP.V. Balakrishnarao, J.1. The defendant in a suit to recover money due to on a promissory note filed by a Kabuli Money-lender is the petitioner in this revision.2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant executed a promissory note for Rs. 340/- in his favour and he did not pay anything. He filed the suit to recover Rs. 463/- claiming interest at 12 per cent per annum though the document did not stipulate for any interest.3. The defendant alleged that he did not borrow any money from the plaintiff; and that he borrowed money from one Kabuliwala by name Sadikhan who took a blank paper with his signature as security for the payment of the loan. He stated that the dues of Sadikhan were paid by him, but the plaintiff having procured the blank paper from the said Sadikhan with his signature has brought this false suit.4. The learned Small Cause Court Judge came to the conclusion that the promissory note Ext. 1 was executed fay the defendant and that it did not show that it was given ...
Bahadur Thakur Vs. Bata Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ori85; 23(1957)CLT468
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. The defendant in a suit files revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the appellate Judgment of the learned District Judge of Balangir-Patna reversing the judgment of the learned Munsif of Balangir who dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit on a promissory note for Rs. 150/- executed by the defendant on 13-5-51 promising to pay the said sum with interest at 12 1/2 per cent per annum. The petitioner-defendant denied the execution of the suit promissory note and receipt of consideration thereunder. He pleaded that he took one Purug of Paddy from the plaintiff who took two thumb impressions from him -- one on a blank paper and the other on a Khata. The defendant repaid the said loan and demanded the return of the paper and cancellation of the entry and the thumb impression in the khata. The plaintiff did not comply with the request.3. The plaintiff is admittedly a moneylender. He gave his registration number in the plaint. Ru...
Fatechand and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ori22
Mohapatka, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of. Messrs. Fatechand & Sons who have been assessed as a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1946-47, the accounting year ending on 31st March 1946. A business styled as Sushil Chandra Jain & Co., was started at Berhampur on 3rd September, 1945. The assessee's case was that this was a partnership business in which Fatechand's family had only ten annas share and one Laduram owned the balance of six annas. While scrutinising the accounts for the assessment year 1947-48 the Income-tax Officer held that the business did not belong to a partnership firm but was the business of the Hindu undivided family of Fatechand & Sons; the family had their original residence at Ramgarh, an Indian State; but for sometime past they are residing in British India and are carrying on business at Berhampur in the name of the Firm Sushil Chandra Jain & Co., even though the real owners of the busine...
State Vs. Chiranjilal Agarwalla and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ori44; 1958CriLJ398
P.V.B. Eao, J.1. Government Appeals Nos. 7 and 8 of 1955 were filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondents Chiranjilal Agarwalla and Lachhminarayan Sharama respectively who were tried separately in two cases on charges for an offence punishable under Section 7 of Act 24 of 1946 and were acquitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bamanghaty, Rairangpur. Both the appeals were heard together as there are common questions of' law and as some common questions of fact are involved in both the appeals.2. The prosecution case in Government Appeal No. 7 of 1955 is that, on 6-5-53, the Enforcement Supervisor, Rairangpur inspected the accounts of yarn of Ramawater Agarwalla, the yarn retailer, Rairangpur and found heavy shortages in respect of 10s, 14s and 20s, yarn and detected that Ramawater Agarwalla had shown fictitious sales in names of many persons including the respondent by issuing ante-dated cash memos. The Supervisor then inspected the shop of the respondent on 26-5-53 a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›