Orissa Court August 1959 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.
Baladeb Jew Thakur Vs. Dhaneswar Misra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Ori54
ORDERS. Barman, J. 1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision directed against an order of the Additional District Magistrate (II), Cuttack, in Rent Revision Case No. 3 of 1957-1958 setting aside an order of the Deputy Collector and previous Rent Suit Officer in Case No. 2/193 B of 1954-1955 under Section 193(b) of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1S39 and directing that the suit be dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. The only question, in this case, is one of limitation which arose in these circumstances: On 31-8-1951 the defendant who was the Tahasildar of the plaintiff Sri Baladeb Jew Thakur installed in its temple at Ichhapur, Kendrapara, in the district of Cuttack, was dismissed for alleged mis-appropriation of monies and negligence for the management of the said Thakur's property. On 3-11-1951, the plaintiff Thakur filed a suit being Original Suit No. 519 of 1951 (III) for recovery of Rs. 2982/-, accounts and other incidental reliefs against the said Tahasildar defendant ...
Batakrushna Das Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Ori14; 26(1960)CLT148; 1961CriLJ132
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 186, 504 and 353 I. P. C. by a First Class Magistrate of Dhenkanal, on the allegation that on 2-12-54 when the Subdivisional Magistrate, Sadar Dhenkanal the Gram Punchayat Organizer and other persons went to village Khadgaprasad to take photographs of the development work going on in that village, the petitioner abused them in insulting and filthy language saying that no real work was being done and the false propaganda was being made by taking photographs. It was alleged that the petitioner obstructed them when they were about to take photographs. On these allegations, a report (Ex. 1) was made by the Gram Punchayet Organizer, on the basis of which the petitioner was placed on trial.2. The learned Magistrate acquitted him of the offence under Section 186 I. P. C. as the Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence prior to the filing of a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned ...
Basanta Priya Dei and anr. Vs. Ramkrishna Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori159
ORDERS. Barman, J. 1. The plaintiffs, wife and husband, are the petitioners in this Civil Revision directed against an order of the 1st Additional Munsif, Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 14 of 1955 holding that the Court of 2nd Munsif, Cuttack had no jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of the relief relating to Schedule A land, situate within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Kendrapara, and in so far as the suit relates to defendants Nos. 2, 5 and 6; and the suit was directed to proceed against the rest of the defendants including defendant No. 1 as proforma defendant only in respect of Schedule H property within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Kendrapara and Schedule C property within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Cuttack: and the plaint was directed to be amended accordingly. 2. The only question for consideration in this matter is whether the learned Munsif was right in making the order thus splitting up the plaintiffs' alleged cause of action against all the the defendants an...
Ramchandra Choudhury Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori58
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Sub Deputy Collector and Anchal Adhikari of the Government of Orissa, challenging the validity of the order of the Government, in RevenueDepartment Resolution No. Con-l/58-21-R (C.S.) dated 25-1-1958, dismissing him from Government service.2. While the petitioner was working as Anchal Adhikari at Kudala from 16-12-1952 to 27-8-1954 he was placed under suspension on charges of corruption and misconduct in the discharge of his official duties. His case was referred to the sole member Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under the provisions of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The said Tribunal framed six charges against him and proceeded with the enquiry in respect of all these charges.At the commencement of the enquiry a senior officer of the Revenue Department was co-opted by the Tribunal as an assessor to assist in enq...
K. Venkataratnam Vs. Kakinda Kamala
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori157; 26(1960)CLT159
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. The defendant husband is the petitioner in this Civil Revision directed against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, allowing the plaintiff wife, as interim maintenance, a consolidated amount of Rs. 30/- on the petition to her suit against her husband, the defendant, for separate maintenance on the allegation that the defendant husband was cruel to her and that she had to abandon her husband's house and put up in the house of her maternal uncle. The said application for interim maintenance was opposed by the husband, on the ground that she was not entitled to such separate maintenance as she, of her own choice deserted him. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, on the basis of the admitted position that the plaintiff is the wife of the defendant and now living separate from her husband made an order for interim maintenance as aforesaid. Hence this revision.2. Mr. L.K. Das Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the husband defendant (petition...
K.J.P. David Vs. Nilamani Devi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori164
G.C. Das, J.1. This is an unsuccessful plaintiff's appeal against the concurrent judgment of both the Courts below. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant was not his legally married wife and that the maintenance order passed in M. S. No. 42 of 1951 is invalid. His case in the plaint was this -- that the mother of the defendant, Krishna Veni was brought to Berhampur by one Labanya Mohanty and was kept by his nephew Shyamsundar as his concubine. Krishna Veni according to the plaintiff, though did not embrace Christianity, married Shyamsundar who was a Christian and the defendant was a daughter out of this wedlock. The plaintiff used to visit the house of the defendant and her mother and developed intimacy with the former.Later as pressed by the defendant and her elder sister and mother the plaintiff was compelled to write out a document in order to clothe the defendant with a legal status as per Ext. A declaring therein the defendant to be his legally married wife...
Chintamoni Moharana and ors. Vs. Krushnaparsad Singh and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori75
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. In this Civil revision the petitionersare certain judgment-debtors who were unsuccessful in both the Courts below in their application under Section 228(2) of the Orissa Tenancy Act (Bihar and Orissa Act II of 1913) for setting aside a sale on the ground of alleged material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting a sale of a tenure or holding for alleged arrears of rent due thereon. This revision is directed against the order made by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack in Execution Appeal No. 25 of 1956-57 dismissing the said appeal from an order made in Execution Case No. 1092 of 1953-54 by which the Rent Suit Deputy Collector dismissed the petitioners' said application under Section 228(2) of the Orissa Tenancy Act on his finding that the application was time-barred.2. The matter arose in these circumstances: By a registered kabala dated August 4, 1931, the petitioners purchased certain properties mentioned in the said Kabala from One Pa...
Sribatsa Pradhan Vs. Narasu Naika and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori61; 1960CriLJ384
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a petition to revise a final order under Section 145, Cr. P. Code, passed by a SpecialFirst Class Magistrate of Aska, in the district of Ganjam, declaring the apposite party (1st party before him) to be entitled to possession of the disputed property until eviction in due course of law. 2. A proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. Code wasinitiated on 6-9-1942 on account of a dispute between the parties regarding certain plots of land invillage Lekhamari, P.S. Bodogada. As there was acriminal case between the parties in respect of thesame property, that proceeding was kept pending.The Criminal case was fought up to the High Courtand the judgment of the High Court was given onlyon 7-8-1958 (Criminal Revision No. 331/1957). Inthat judgment, the trial Court's finding regardingpossession of the disputed property by the complainant was upheld as it was based partly on thepresumption of correctness attaching to the recentsettlement entry and partly on the o...
Labanya Debi and ors. Vs. Govinda Malik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori66
ORDERS. Barman, J. 1. In this civil revision, the defendants NOS. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are the petitioners in revision, directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal, in T. S. No. 32 of 1955 rejecting the objections filed by the said defendants who are the petitioners in the present application and accepting the report of the Commissioner appointed in the said Court. 2. The dispute arose out of an alleged mistaken identity of certain plots of land -- due to bo delivered to one Gobinda Malik in execution of a decree in a partition suit filed by him, -- with certain other plots presumably due to confusion of the successive Commissioners appointed in this connection as hereinafter fully discussed. The matter arose in these circumstances; In 1951 Gobinda Malik filed a suit being suit No. 39 of 1951 against Pitabas Mohanty and Purastam Mohanty being petitioner No. 3 herein for partition of plot No. 14/320 with an area of 3.05 acres and plot No. 14/523 with an area of 0.77 d...
Pravulal Patadia Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori43
Narasimham, C.J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of the Gram Panchayat of Gati Rout Patna directing the petitioner to pay license fee at Rs. 20/ per lakh of bricks manufactured in his kiln within the jurisdiction of the said Panchayat. 2. Chapter V-l of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1948, contains various provisions dealing with regulation and control over industries, and factories (including dangerous and offensive trades, occupations and processes) within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat) Section 49-G confers powers on a Gram Panchayat to levy fees in respect of any licenses granted under that Chapter, subject to certain maximum, to be determined by the State Government by notification in that behalf. In exercise of the powers conferred by this section the State of Orissa in the local Self-Government Department Notification No. 1283 L. S. O. dated the 1st December, 1950, fixed the maximum fees leviable per annum in res...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »