Orissa Court July 1957 Judgments
Digambar Aruk and ors. Vs. Nanda Aruk and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori281; 1957CriLJ1437
Narasimham, C.J. 1. The three petitioners were tried before the Adalti Panchayat of Amrutmanohi for an offence under Section 323, I. P. C. and petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20/- and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 to a fine of Rs. 10/- each. They filed a revision petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kendrapara against their conviction and sentence alleging various irregularities in the trial. Bait the Sub-divisional Magistrate declined to interfere. 2. The Amrutmanohi Adalti Panchayat was constituted under the provisions of the Orissa Grain Panchayats Act 1948 and the procedure to be followed by the Panchayat for the trial of offences is fully described in Chapter VII of that Act and the various rules framed thereunder. An offence under Section 323, I. P. C., is one of the offences cognizable by an Adalti Panchayat under Section 64(1) of the Act. The procedure before the Adalti Panchayat is summary and Section 82 of the Act directs every Adalti Panchayat to dispo...
Tag this Judgment!Jeypore Sugar Company, Ltd. Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-1957
Reported in: 24(1958)CLT148; (1958)IILLJ91Ori
Das, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging ex facie the legality of the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, dated 11 July 1955. The facts material for this application are:The petitioner company, having its head office at Rayagada in the district of Koraput, started work in or about the year 1936. In January 1951 a union of the workers of the aforesaid company was started under the name ' Shramik Congress.' A number of demands thereafter were formulated by this Congress regarding the pay and prospects of the workers and the company accepted the same on the advice of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. In September 1951 the petitioner company dismissed and retrenched some workmen as a result of which the union served a notice on 15 October 1951 demanding their reinstatement, and threatened a strike in the event of non-compliance.The company eventually did not accept this demand and there was a strike on 19 October 1951. T...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Lenka Vs. Karunakar Rout and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori257
ORDERG.C. Das, J.1. This is a petition on behalf of the auction purchaser against the order of the Munsif of Anandapur, rejecting his petition for the refund of the balance of the earnest money which was deposited by him on the date of the sale. The facts are: the Judgment debtor, opposite party No, 2's properties were sold at Court auction on 21-11-55 or Rs. 1000/- at the instance of the decree-holder, who is opposite party No. 1 in this application. The auction-purchaser petitioner deposited 25 per cent of the sale-money as the earnest money on that very day as required under Order 21, Rule 84, C. P. C. The executing Court allowed him time to deposit the balance of the sale money by 7-12-55 under' Order 21, Rule 85. On 7-12-55, the auction purchaser came with the money and tendered it with a challan at 10-30 a.m.According to the auction-purchaser, the challan was passed by the Munsif rather late at about 3-30 P. M. on that day. The result was that he could not deposit the amount in t...
Tag this Judgment!Loki Prasad Ram and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori258
Das, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the appointment of Tahsildar, Banapur, and his competency to exercise the functions of Banapur Grama Panchayat.2. The facts are that Banapur Grama Pan-chayat functioned till the middle of the year 1954, when a fresh election was held in July under the provisions of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act (Orissa Act XV of 1948) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The newly elected body was to take charge on and from September 1, 1954. There having been certain grave irregularities in the conduct of the election, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in this Court which was numbered as O. J. C. No. 86 of 1954.That application succeeded in this Court and the election was set aside. No further election was, however, held; but the District Magistrate, Purl, purporting to act under Section 98 (f) of the Act read with Rule 248 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Maheswari Prasad Deo Vs. the State of Orissa and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori219
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of notification No. 14386-6F-130/48-R., dated 20-12-1949 of the Government of Orissa in the Revenue Department taking over the management of the Forests within the former zamindari of the petitioner known as Lanjigarh in Kalahandi district. A copy of the Nitiftcation is given below:'Government of OrissaRevenue Department.The 20th December, 1949.No. 14386-6F-130/48-R. : In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section CD of Section 80 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 (XVI of 1927), read with the notification of the Government of Orissa in the Home Department No. 2 A., dated 1-1-1948 the Governor of Orissa is pleased to direct that the forests of the Zamindaries of Kalahandi State mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto shall be managed by the Government of Orissa in the Forest Department with effect from 1-1-1950 as the Government is interested Jointly with the respective z...
Tag this Judgment!Dasarathi Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori228; 23(1957)CLT346; [1957]8STC720(Orissa)
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Orissa Sales Tax authorities directing payment of sales tax in respect of the supply of gunny bags containing paddy and rice to the Government.2. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Government of Orissa onthe 4th December, 1953 for the purchase of paddy and rice by the petitioner for Government purposes and a copy of the agreement between the two has also been filed along with the petition. The salient features in the terms of the agreement are as follows: The petitioner agreed to serve as an Agent Of the Government of Orissa for the purchase of paddy and rice in the district of Puri. His responsibilities as an Agent were as follows:(i) the purchase of foodgrains in the area of operation allotted to him by the Collector on behalf of the Government;(ii) taking custody, packing, transport to depot and safe storage of foodgrains so purchased by the Agent or of foodg...
Tag this Judgment!Khetro Nahako and anr. Vs. Sukuru Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori224; 23(1957)CLT359
ORDERDas, J.1. This is a defendant's petition against the order of the Small Cause Court Judge. Aska, which raises an interesting question of law as to from what date the period of limitation will begin to run as provided under Article 99 of the Limitation Act. The facts are rather simple. In T.S. No. 26 of 1950, the petitioners and the opposite party were the defendants. Admittedly defendants 1 to 4 were set down, ex parte in that suit. But nevertheless a joint decree was passed against the petitioners and the opposite party. When execution of that decree was levied by the decree-holder, the opposite party Sukuru Panda paid the entire decretal dues. Accordingly he filed the present suit against the petitioners (S. C. C. Suit No. 217 of 1954 of the Court of the Munsif of Aska) for contribution. The trial Judge decreed the suit on contest against the petitioners and ex parte against defendant 2. Thus, the only question I am called upon to decide is whether or not the suit is barred by l...
Tag this Judgment!Syam Sundar Misra Vs. the State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori222
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Manager of Parlakimedi Municipality against an order of dismissal from service passed by the Commissioner and Special Officer of the Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Special Officer) Sri K.M. Das on 1-4-51 after a departmental enquiry. The petitioner filed an appeal to the State Government on 1-5-51. But it appears that no orders were passed by the Government on the appeal. It is indeed strange that an appeal of this type should have remained undisposed of by the Government for such a long period. In sheer despair the petitioner came to this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution on 22-9-55 and though the learned Advocate General appeared for the State of Orissa during the hearing of this petition he has not been able to enlighten us as to what happened to the petitioners' appeal.2. The conditions of service of the petitioner as an employee of a Municipality governed by the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›