Orissa Court November 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.
Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments and anr. Vs. Kanak Durga Th ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ori183
G.C. Das, J. 1. This second appeal and the application under Article 226 of the Constitution which is numbered as O. J. C. 401 of 1956, were ordered by a Bench of this Court to be heard together being connected matters' and accordingly they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. The second appeal by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (defendant-1) (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) is directed against a judgment of the learned Dist. Judge of Cut-tack D/-26-4-52 dismissing his appeal arising out of a suit filed by the respondents under Section 64 (2) of the old Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Orissa Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the Act)'.2. O. J. C. No. 401 of 1956, was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus against the Commissioner and the Certificate Officer, Kendrapara, directing them not to proceed with the certificate pro...
Lambodar Panda and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ori248; 24(1958)CLT117
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. The defendants filed this Second appeal against the reversing judgment of Shri B. S. Patnaik, Subordinate Judge of Balasore decreeing the plaintiffs suit for a declaration of their right of way over the disputed land belonging to the defendants and directing the defendants to remove the obstructions raised by them to the plaintiffs right of way over the said land and permanently restraining them from closing the pathway.2. The plaintiffs' case is that there is a public road (plot No. 52) running east-west between the homesteads of the parties and the suit pathway is situated on the fallow plots of the defendants and has its point of entrance from the said public road near the front of the plaintiffs' homestead and its point of departure on a village pasture land which, is on the north-east of the said pathway and is being used as a way by the plaintiffs for generations and for more than thirty years peaceably and openly and as of right without any interruption; that th...
Hemanta Kumar Bose Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-12-1957
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ433Ori
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Government of Orissa in the Revenue Department No. 603 Con., dated 1 October 1953, dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 20 August 1953.2. The petitioner, after serving in various subordinate capacities, was subsequently confirmed as superintendent of excise with effect from 14 April 1945. During the year 1949 when he was working as superintendent of excise in Dhenkanal district, there were some allegations of corruption against him which were investigated confidentially by the then Additional District Magistrate of Dhenkanal Sri S.N. Misra. He was placed under suspension on 19 August 1949 and the preliminary investigation was continued under Government orders by the subsequent Additional District Magistrate of Dhonkanal, Sri S.S. Patro. During that investigation, however, the petitioner was permitted to be present while the witnesses were being examined and he was als...
Lingam Narayan Das Vs. Punia Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Ori176
ORDERG.C. Das, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judnnent of the learned Small Cause Court Judge, Berampur, dismissing his suit. The plaintiff filed a suit against ihe defendant for realisation of Rs. 154-10-0, basing his claim on a promissory note dated 28-5-55. The defence inter alia was that the defendant gave his thumb impression on a blank piece of paper under threat & coercion for the execution of a Muchalika. The learned Small Cause Court Tudge dismissed the suit on two grounds: (i) The attestor and the scribe of the document are both interested in the plaintiff and hence they cannot be believed. (2) The name of the payee is not mentioned in the promissory note itself. Therefore in terms of Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it cannot be held to be a promissory hole.2. Mr. N.V. Ramdas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the onus was wrongly put on the plaintiff...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›