Orissa Court October 1960 Judgments
Ladi Jagannadham Vs. Sm. Padmabati Baurani
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori7
S. Barman, J. 1. The Employer is the appellant, in this Misc. Appeal, from an order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Koraput, dated September 15, 1958 allowing compensation to the widow of the workman (respondent herein) under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Act VIII of 1923) of a sum of Rs. 2,400/-under the said Act.2. The claim of the respondent,--who is the widow of the alleged workman, arose thus; while her husband, on January 27, 1954 was piling up paddy bags as a Khalasi in the Trinath Rice Mill, Gunupur, in the district of Koraput, one bag is alleged to have fallen over him, as a result of which he died, on the same day. The claimant's case is that her husband was earning Rs. 2/- to Rs. 3/- per day. The deceased workman is stated to be aged about 35 years at the time of his death.The deceased workman's widow claimed lump sum of Rs 2.400/- on the basis of remuneration that the husband was earning from his employment at the rice mill. The defence to the claim,--a...
Tag this Judgment!Banchhanidhi Giri and ors. Vs. Mst. Jema and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori48
S. Barman, J.1. The question,--whether, in the circumstances of the case, there was partition by severance of status, though not by metes and bounds,--is the only point involved in this second appeal filed by the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2, 5 to 8 against a reversing decision of the learned subordinate Judge, Puri, whereby he set aside a decision of the learned Munsif, Navagarh, and decreed the plaintiffs suit for partition for his one-third share in the property.2. A geneological table, showing the relationship of the parties,--other than the outsider purchasers from the members of the joint family, who are also defendants in the suit,-- is set out asfollows: _____________________________________________________ | | | Bhagwan Hadu Ladu (died 1944) | | | Banchhanidhi | __________|____________ | | | | Jema (D.3) Asali (D.4) | _________________|____________________________ | | Padmanav Ramchandra (D. 1) (D. 2) | | Pabitra Ramchandra (D. 5) (D. 2) ___________________|__________________...
Tag this Judgment!Suryamani Sahu and ors. Vs. Darsani Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori47
ORDERG.C. Das, J.1. This petition is by the plaintiffs against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Balasore, calling upon them to pay additional court-fee.2. The facts are these. Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition each claiming one-fifth share in the joint family properties. According to them, their father, defendant No. 1, had alienated certain properties in the name of some of the defendants. They further stated that the several deeds of alienations were not acted upon and accordingly theypaid a court-fee of Rs. 150/- as required in a pure suit for partition. The value of the properties involved is Rs. 1,69,285.64 nP. The peripatetic stamp reporter after a closer examination of the plaint reported that the plaintiffs were liable to pay court-fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act in respect of the properties covered under various alienations, because according to him the properties covered by the transfers' cannot be partitioned unless the transfers are set asid...
Tag this Judgment!Nityananda Panigrahi Vs. Smt. Lakhmipriya Panigrahi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori46
ORDERS.P. Mohapatra, J.1. These two matters have been filed by the plaintiff against the same order dated 31st July, 1958 passed by the Additional Subordinate judge of Berhampur exercising jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in restoring the original suit to file for trial in accordance with law. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in the Miscellaneous Appeal and petitioner in the Civil Revision, had filed the suit against four defendants. Defendant No. 1 is the widow of Magata Panigrahi. Defendant No. 2 alleges himself to be the adopted son of Magata. The plaintiff is the brother of Magata. Defendants 3 and 4 are the subsequent aliences from defendants 1 and 2. The suit was brought on the assertion that defendant No. 2 was never adopted by Magata and further to set aside the alienations on the ground that they were not for legal necessity. 2. The suit was originally filed at Berhampur but it was transferred to Aska and on 16th July 1956 a compromise petition was...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Keshari Chand Geurchand Firm
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori49
ORDERG.C. Das, J.1. This is an application by the defendant--Union of India, against an order of the learned Small Cause Court Judge, Cuttack, decreeing the plaintiff's suit claiming recovery of a sum of Rs. 85/- which was realised by the defendant Railway as under-charge. 2. Plaintiff's case was that an indent was placed for fifty bags of Kalanji seeds from Sasaram in Bihar through the defendant-railway for delivery at the Cuttack railway station. Plaintiff took delivery of the consignment at the Cuttack Railway Station on May 20, 1957. At the time of the delivery the Railway authorities realised an extra freight of Rs. 81/- on the ground, that there has been an under-charge. Plaintiff paid the money and the defendant passed a money receipt in his favour. Thus, the plaintiffs case was that the defendant realised, the under-charge on the ground, that the consignment contained 'Kalajira', though actually the consignment was o Kalanji Seeds. According to the defendant-railway the freight...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamsundar Panda Vs. Shantamani Debi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori50
Mohapatra, J. 1. This First appeal has been brought by the defendant husband against the judgment and decree dated 18th September 1956 of the Subordinate Judge of Mayurbhani arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, who was the married wife of the defendant, claiming maintenance, past and future, and for recovery of ornaments. She has also claimed a sum for her separate residence. The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant had taken place in the year 1944, The present suit has been brought on the basis of cruelty and desertion. The plaintiff's version is that the defendant along with his parents had been torturing the plaintiff ever since the time of her marriage and made her life unsafe and intolerable. So she wrote letters to her father. On the 5th September 1945 her father was compelled to take recourse to law and by an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate her father obtained police help and rescued the plaintiff. Thereafter the defendant in February 1948 had taken...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›