Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori5
R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Raja of Puri challenging the constitutional validity of Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 (Orissa Act II of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed by the Orissa Legislature and published in the Orissa Gazettee dated 4-11-1955.2. The petition was filed by Sri Ramchandra Deb, who made extravagant claims to the effect that the Temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) was the private temple of his family, that all its movcable and immovable properties were also his private properties, and that by passing the Act the Orissa Legislature infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 26, 27, 28 and 31(2) of the Constitution. Sri Ramchandra Deb died after the filing of the petition and his son Sri Bira Kishore Deb, was substituted in his place on 5-3-1957. Mr. A. C. Gupta who appeared for Sri Bira Kishore Deb frankly conceded that the Temple was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori17
R.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one of the sebaks of the Temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri, known as Pratihari, for a declaration that the Shri Jagannath Temple Act(1954 (Act 11 of 1954), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is ultra vires the State Legislature and not capable of being given effect to. 2. This petition was heard along with O. J. C., No. 321 of 1955 : (AIR 1959 Orissa 5) (A) in which the Raja of Puri challenged the validity of the Act. Most of the constitutional questions have been fully discussed in my judgment in that petition which has been delivered today. Mr. M. Mohanty on behalf of the petitioners, laid special emphasis on the fact that the Temple of Sri Jagannath at Puri (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) belongs to a special sect of Hindus known as the followers of 'Jagannath Dharma' who form a separate denomination of their own, within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution. This question has been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori47
S. Barman, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of the Election Tribunal, Puri (Shri T. V. Rao, Member, Election Tribunal) dismissing the election petition, on contest, against the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Congress candidate) and ex parteagainst the respondent No. 2 (hereinater referred to as the Independent candidate).2. The relevant facts, shortly stated, are these: In the last General Elections, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Socialist candidate) as well as the respondents 1 and 2 filed their nomination papers from the Banki Constituency (District Cuttack) for being candidate for the Orissa Legislative Assembly. At the scrutiny, an objection was taken on behalf of the Congress candidate to the effect that the Independent candidate was a per on not qualified to stand for the election on the ground that he had an interest in a contract for the supply of goods and performance of services to the Government of Orissa. The said objection was, howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1958Ori287
ORDERG.C. Das, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's petition directed against an order of the learned Munsif of Cuttack allowing - second defendant's petition to examine ten witnesses on commission by the small cause court judge at Madras. 2. The plaintiff commenced an action for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2706-6-0 from the defendants for non-delivery of four bales of yarnwhich were despatched from Madura to the address of the plaintiff at Cuttack. The whole case of the plaintiff was that it was due to the misconduct and negligence on the part of the railway i authorities that he incurred the above loss. There were two defendants to the action, the first being the Eastern Railway which is now changed to South Eastern Railway and the second being the Southern Railway. The defence of both, the defendants was that there was a theft in the running train and that they handed over the case to the police and the police could not detect. Hence they are not liable for the loss suffered while the goods...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori4
ORDERP.V.B. Rao, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pun, refusing to extend the time for passing an award on a reference made by the parties.2. In pursuance of the terms of an agreement executed by the petitioner and the Government of Orissa in July, 1953, the Governor of Orissa constituted a Tribunal consisting of three members for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The Chairman of that Tribunal sent an application to the learned Subordinate Judge along with a letter dated 20-6-56 stating the circumstances under which the award could not be made within four months after entering on the reference and also requesting for enlargement of time. The petitioner also filed a similar application.3. The date of entering on the reference was 27-1-54 when all the members of the Tribunal met together. On 22-4-54 the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal to withdraw the reference and after hearing the said petition, the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori16
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Bolongir, in T. S. No. 25 of 1954 rejecting the plaintiff's petition for amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiffs in this suit claiming to be Hindus governed by the Mitakshara Law, filed this suit against the defendants praying for reliefs mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint which were as Follows :'8. The plaintiffs claim - (a) declaration that they are entitled to 1/6 share each of the Schedule A lands i.e. 1/2 of the whole together, and partition accordingly through Court; (b) delivery of possession of the shares to the parties after partition by metes and bounds: (c) any other relief as the Court deems fit under the circumstances; (d) costs of the suit; x x x x x'.Written statement was duly filed by the defendants. Thereafter the Stamp Reporter reportedthat in view of the nature of the prayer in theplaint, the suit fell within the purview of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act. Thereupon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1958Ori280; [1959]37ITR522(Orissa)
G.C. Das, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the Certificate Officer, Cuttack, prohibiting him from proceeding with the certificate case against the petitioners. It was further prayed that the opposite party No. 1, the Income-tax Officer, Cuttack, be prohibited from collecting the arrears of tax in question by the aforesaid certificate proceedings from the petitioners. The facts leading upto this application are these: One Natabarlal alone with the petitioners carried on a partnership business under the name and style of Messrs. Natabarlal Tayasankar, agent to Orient Dyeing and Printing Works, Cuttack. The sole purpose of the partnership, it is 'stated, was to work as commission agent of the Orient Dyeing and Printing Works. It is an admitted fact that the partnership worked for three years, that is from September 1946 to March 1949. The assessment to income-tax for the year 1948 49 was completed on 19-11-49...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1958Ori260
P.V.B. Rao, J. 1. The appellant Raghunath Misra of Banpur files this appeal against the judgment of the Election Tribunal (Shri T. V. Rao, District. Judge, Puri) dismissing his application under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) for declaring void the election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly of Raja Bahadur Kishore Chandra Deo Bhanj o Daspalla, respondent No. 1, from the Daspalla double-member constituency in which a seat is reserved for the scheduled caste candidate.2. The general seat was contested by respondent No. 1 Raja Bahadur of Daspalla, respondent No. 3 Shri Durga Madhab Deo and the appellant. The reserved seat was contested by Shri Sridhar Naik (respondent No. 2), Iswar Naik, Manguli Sethi and Basudeb Naik. The last three persons were not added as parties to the application as they were not necessary parties for the reason that they contested the reserved seat and the election of respondent No. 2, Shri Sridhar Naik to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1958Ori187
R.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 ofthe Constitution, challenging the validity of Notification No. 3710-V-Ind-38/52I dated the 27th June 1953, of the Government of Orissa in the Industrial Department, and all subsequent notifications and actions taken by the State Government and the Land Acquisition Officer, Cuttack, for the acquisition of the petitioner's lands described in the schedule attached to the petition, under the provisions of the Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act 1948 (Orissa Act XVIII of 1948 -- hereinafter referred to as the Act).The impugned notification may be quoted in full:' Industries Department,NotificationThe 27th June 1953. No. 3710-v-Ind. 38/52. T. In pursuance of Sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1958Ori123; (1958)IILLJ623Ori
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of Commissioner, Payment of Wages, Balasore (Additional District Magistrate, Balasore) in Payment of Wages Act Case No. 1 of 1956 making an order that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the employer) should pay Rs. 165/- to the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the employee). The said order was passed on an application made by the employee-opposite party under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act (Act IV) of 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The said employee, being the petitioner before the Commissioner, the opposite party herein, was a bus conductor in a private stage carriage belonging to the employer, being petitioner herein. The said employee made an application to the Commissioner for a total sumof Rs. 275/- being his pay from February to May, 1956 at the rate of Rs. 55/- per month (Rs. 220/-) and one month's notice pay Rs. 55/-, aggregating the said sum of Rs. 275/-. The Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!