Orissa Court August 1958 Judgments
Nanda Kishore Chiranjilal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Ori141
S.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The plaintiffs, who were unsuccessful in both the courts below, have come with this second appeal against the confirming judgment of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit for recovery of damages on account of the plaintiffs' having suffered damages of their articles consignedfrom Faruqabad to Bhadrak. The plaintiffs' version is that a consignment of 273 baskets of potatoes weighing nearly 307 maunds was despatched on 27-5-52 from Faruquabad situate in East Indian Railway at the time when the consignment was made, and the consignment reached Bhadrak the place of destination on 8-6-52 and the plaintiffs when taking delivery of the goods on 9-6-52 found that 100 baskets had suffered damages to the extent of 80 per cent, another 100 baskets to the extent of 40 per cent and the rest 73 baskets to the extent of 35 per cent. The plaintiffs therefore levied the claim at Rs. 2445/-. The plaintiffs aver that the damages were on account of the delay and negligence ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghu Sutar and ors. Vs. Nrusingha Nath Thakur and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ori148
S. Barman, J.1. The defendants are the appellants before us. In May 1950, the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants alleging that they were trespas ers on the suit land. In September, 1951, there was a decree for ejectment of the defendants. Against the said decree, seven defendants appealed. During the pendency of the appeal one of the defendants being defendant No. 6 Chintamani Paital, died leaving him surviving his heirs and legal representatives. Admittedly, there was no substitution of the deceased's heirs and legal representatives.2. The only question for consideration on these facts, briefly stated above, is whether it was a case of partial or total abatement.3. It appears from the frame of the suit, as in the plaint, that it was a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title. The prayers in paragraph 10 of the plaint are as follows:'(a) that it be declared that the plaintiff No. 1 through the trustees plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 has title to the suit lands and that the def...
Tag this Judgment!Sukra Oram Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ori21; 1959CriLJ213
P.V.B. Roa, J.1. The appellant Sukra Oram was convicted by Shri B. K. Das, Assistant Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer a further period of three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. According to the prosecution case, both the appellant and the victim Howri Oramin (P.W. 3) are co-villagers. They had been to Rourkela to earn their livelihood about two years prior to the occurrence and became intimate with each other which resulted in P.W. 3 becoming pregnant. They both returned to their village in the month of Magh of the year 1956. On 18-10-56, the victim (P.W. 3) left her father's house and met the appellant who successfully persuaded her to leave the village and accompany him elsewhere to earn their livelihood as he was ashamed to live in the village on account of her pregnancy.The prosecution case is that both of them came to a lonely...
Tag this Judgment!Bhima Sahu Vs. Dukhei Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ori57; 24(1958)CLT464; 1959CriLJ500
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed by leave of the Court against the acquittal of the respondent of the charge under Section 406, I. P. C.2. The complainant-appellant stated that he pledged a gold necklace weighing 3 tolas consisting of 8 Tabis and one Padaka with the accused-respondent and received Rs. 100/-. The interest was fixed at 2 pice per rupee per month. He alleged that he repaid the entire amount, namely Rs. 140-10-0 to the accused in presence of one Suresh Chandra Mohanty.That being a Thursday, it appears that the respondent refused to return the necklace and asked the appellant to come on the next day for getting the same back. He approached the respondent the next day but the latter denied any knowledge of the necklace and abused him. He reported the matter to the Village Panchayat, but to no effect.3. The accused-respondent denied the pledge as well as the payment of money. The appellant examined six witnesses. The Magistrate to whom the case was transferred did not ac...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Abanikanta Roy and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ori69
S. Barman, J.1. This is a case under S. 10 of the Indian Bar Councils Act regarding the conduct of one Shri Abani Kanta Roy and one Shri Sovesh Chandra Roy, both Advocates of this Court. Shri Abani Kanta Roy came into the picture as the official liquidator appointed by this Court. These Roys who are involved in these proceedings are two young members of the Bar. What happened was this :2. On August 9, 1954 Shri Abani Kanta Roy (hereinafter referred to as Shri Abani) was appointed as the Official Liquidator of the Lakshmi Hosiery Mills Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as the company). It appears that since June 1952, one Shri Gagan Behari Mahanti and Shri Golak Behari Mahanti (hereinafter referred to as the Mahantis) were in occupation of a certain house standing on holding No. 961/499 in Ward No. 21 of Cuttack Municipality which was taken on lease by the said Company.The said Mahantis did not pay anything either as rent or as damages for use and occupation of the said hou...
Tag this Judgment!Malcolm Angus Tulloch Vs. the Revenue Commissioner and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-12-1958
Reported in: [1958]9STC799(Orissa)
Narasimham, C.J. 1. These two applications are directed against the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated the ,10th July, 1952, declining to revise the assessment of the petitioner to sales tax in respect of certain sales effected in 1949 in favour of an American firm named Messrs. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation, New York. The petitioner asked the Member, Board of Revenue, to state a case for the decision of the High Court under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, but the member refused and S. J. C. No. 24 of 1952 was filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The petitioner, however, thought it advisable to file an independent application under Article 226 of the Constitution O.J.C. No. 15 of 1953 against the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, for quashing the assessment order on the aforesaid sale. The two applications were heard together and are disposed of in one judgment.2. The facts which were admitted by the petitioner himself ...
Tag this Judgment!G.V. Ramamurty Patnaik Vs. P. Pani, Magistrate, I Class and Ex-officio ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ori22
R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. The two references and the application under Article 226 of the Constitution were all heard together, and will be dealt with in one judgment.2. The opposite party in the two civil references, Sri G. V. Ramamurty Patnaik is a Pleader (hereinafter referred to as the Pleader) practising at Gunupur in Koraput District. The criminal work of that place is in charge of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate who, as the ex-officio Munsif, is also empowered to dispose of uncontested Civil matters and to keep contested civil matters ready for hearing by the District Munsif of Jeypore whenever the latter goes to Gunupur on circuit.3. In 1955-56 one Sri P. Pani was the Stationary Sub-Magistrate cum-ex-officio Munsif of Gunupur. Sri Ramamurty Patnaik and Sri Pani were not pulling onwell for several reasons which need not be mentioned here. It appears that as early as 1954 the Pleader cent a petition to the then District Magistrate of Koraput, Sri Kartar Singh, making allegations of d...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Pati Vs. Sisir Kumar Bose and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ori41
S. Barman, J. 1. In this matter, the defendant-judgment-debtorNo. 1 Harihar Pati is the appellant before us. The relevant facts, shortly stated, leading to the presentcontroversy are these : On February 12, 1940 one Surath Nath Bose, Sisir Kumar Bose, Prafulla Kumar Bose, Bijoy Kumar Bose, Birendra Nath Bose, and Nalinibehari Bose (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff-Boses) filed a suit in the 2nd Munsif'sCourt Cuttack, being O. S. No. 56 of 1941, againstthe appellant Harihar Pati: and in the said suit, the plaintiffs joined Kunjabehari Bose. Bipinbehari Bose and Bankimbehari Bose (hereinafter referred to as defendant-Boses), as pro forma defendants.The basis of the alleged claim of the plaintiffswas that the defendant No. 1 Harihar Pati, theappellant before us, was a trespasser in respect ofthe suit land, described in the schedule to theplaint in the suit. Incidentally, it is relevant to mention here that the shares of the plaintiff-Boses and the defendant-Boses were specified in the...
Tag this Judgment!Annada Devi Vs. Banchhanidhi Samantaray
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ori1
G.C. Das, J.1. This is a reference by the District Judge of Cuttack under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act (Act XVIII of 1879) against the opposite party, Shri Banchhanidhi Samantaray, a pleader practising at Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'the pleader').2. The proceeding was initiated on a complaint made by Shrimati Annada Devi wife of one Udaynath Das who engaged the pleader in money suit No. 386 of 1955 and execution case No. 201 of 1955 on behalf of her husband. Annada Devi, admittedly, was the decree-holder in execution case No. 201 of 1955 and her husband was the decree-holder in execution case No. 106 of 1956. Money Suit No. 386 of 1955 was filed by her for recovery of a sum of Rs. 680/- against one Baldev Das in the Court of the 1st Munsif, Cuttack.In the execution case No. 201 of 1955, admittedly, the pleader realised a sum of Rs. 120/- between April 10, and September 1, 1956, from the Judgment-debtor and did not make over the said amount to her.3. The defence of...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mahammad Khan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ori103
S. Barman, J. 1. The defendants are appellants from a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur, granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff- respondent against the defendants-appellants to the extent of Rs. 8,902/6/-, finding them jointly liable to compensate the plaintiff-respondent for the said amount, suffered by the plaintiff-respondent, as loss,2. The relevant facts for the present purpose are shortly these: The plaintiff-respondent was a timber mereuant, carrying on business at Sambalpur since the year 1931. The plaintiff-respondent had stacked large quantities of timber on land belonging to the Bengal Nagpur Railway Administration (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-Railway) adjoining Sambalpur Railway Station, mostly for the purpose of supplying the same to the war Board. During the active prosecution of the Great War the plaintiff-respondent was constantly supplying timber which used to be loaded into waguns at Sambalpur Railway Station. Due to paucity ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›