Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori152
S.P. Mahapatra, J.1. The plaintiff has brought this second appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 917/8/-. The promissory note executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is dated 23rd September 1944 for a principal amount of Rs. 500/-. Plaintiff and defendant No, 2 are two brothers, defendant No. 2 being the elder. The plaintiffs version is that the money was advanced from out of the joint family funds and in a partition in the year 1945 this debt along with the promissory note fell to the share of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 made two payments to the plaintiff on 6th September 1947 and 26th August. 1950.2. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit mainly on the ground that the suit is not maintainable as there is no endorsment on the pronote as required under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Defendant No. 1 admitted execution of the handnote, but did not admit that the consideratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori67
ORDERS. Barman, J.In this application, arising out of a Company Act Case No. 4 of 1957 and Execution Case No. 79 of 1958, the judgment-debtor one Baishanab Charan Bagudai is the petitioner for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him by this Court on April 26, 1957 purported to have been made under Section 45-D of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, mainly on the ground that the summons was not served on him and that the said decree was passed without his knowledge and that he had, on merits, a good defence to the claim of the opposite party Puri Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank).2. The matter arose under the following circumstances : The judgment-debtor Baishnab Charan Bagudai, who is now a teacher in a Middle English School at Jharadihi in the district of Mayurbhanj, had previously a small member business in the town of Balasore where he opened an account with the Bank at its Balasore branch for occasional accommodation to him in his said business. It is said th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori73
S. Barman, J. 1. In this second appeal, the plaintiff Raghunath Pani is the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the alleged tenant) from a reversing decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri, whereby he reversed a decision of the learned Munsif, Puri and dSsmissed the tenant's suit for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him on the ground of alleged fraud by suppression of the summons in a rent suit filed by the defendant-respondent Radhakanta Deb, Bija Marfatdar Mahant Biswambhar Das Chela of late Madhab Das of Puri Town (hereinafter referred to as the alleged landlord). 2. The matter arose in these circumstances: In 1948-49 the landlord filed a case for appraisement of produce under Section 79 of the Orissa Tenancy Act being O.T.A. Misc. Case No. 188/- 48-49 which on January 4, 1949 was decided against the landlord with the observation by the Deputy Collector that there seems to be some dispute as regards the alleged Bhag transaction of the land in suit; that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori9
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Puri decreeing the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession of certain properties described in the schedule attached to the plaint. The following geneological tree will show the relationship of the parties: KRISHNA CHANDRA BHANJA BIRABAR JAGADES | ------------------------------- | | Pitabas Bhanja Ramchandra Bidhar Birabar Jagadev Samant | (died in 1943) Raghunath | Bhanja Birabar | Jagadev (Plaintiff) | | -------------------------- | | 1st wife 2nd wife | | Braja Sundar Indramani Devi Bidhar (died defdt.1 in 1946) | =Annapurna Dev | defdt. 5 ------------------ | | Hemalata Ratnamali defdt.2 defdt.3 married to Bansidhar defdt.42. The plaintiff was the proprietor of the well-known Khandayat estate of Haldia in Puri District (commonly known as the Raja of Haldia). The saidestate is said to be an ancient impartible estate descending in accordance with the rule of lineal primoge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1960Ori185; 26(1960)CLT525; 1960CriLJ1358
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a petition by the complainant against an order dated 11-3-59 passed by Sri J. Misra, Magistrate 1st Class, Berhampur expunging from the record the evidence of lour prosecution witnesses, namely P. Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 7 during the course of a trial on the ground that the petitioner (complainant) unduly delayed in producing them for the purpose of cross-examination. 2. The relevant facts are as follow: The petitioner filed a complaint against the opposite party on 11-9-56 for an offence under Section 379 I. P. C. The case had a chequered career in the courts of several magistrates and witnesses were examined piece-meal on several dates. The main examination and cross-examination before charge took place in 1957 and 1958. P. W. 4 was examined in chief and cross-examined before charge on 20-9-1957, P. W. 7 on 30-12-57, P. W. 6 on 29-7-58 and P. W. 7 on 22-11-58. Charge was framed on 17-1-1959. Then the learned Magistrate addressed himself to the question o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori85
S.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 and defendants 3 to 10 are the appellants in this second appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for damages. The suit is in respect of an area 1.24 appertaining to plot] No. 15 of Khata No. 12. It is unnecessary to detail the facts of the case as I am going to remand the case for disposal in accordance with law by the lower appellate Court. It will be sufficient to mention that on the plaintiffs' allegation trespass was committed by defendants 1 to 10 on 11-6-52 which serves as the cause of action for the suit where the palintiffs base their title on a lease granted by the father of defendant No. 11, the landlord, on 19-5-1932. 2. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit finding possession with defendants 1 to 10 and further finding that the lease was not genuine and the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori53; 26(1960)CLT263; 1961CriLJ412
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a revision petition against an order under Section 117 (3) Cri. P. C., passed by Sri K. C. Mohapatra Sub-divisional Magistrate, Cuttack during the pendency of a proceeding under Section 107 Cri. P. C. against the petitioners. 2. The principles to be followed by Magistrates in calling upon a party to execute an interim bond under Section 117 (3) Cri. P. C. during the pendency of a proceeding under Section 107 Cri. P. C. have been laid down in Munshi Ghafur Khan v. Saratullah, 22 Cut LT 508. 3. Merely because in the Police report recommending the initiation of a proceeding under Section 107 Cri. P. C. there is a prayer for taking interim bonds from the accused persons the Magistrate would not be justified in calling upon the accused to execute such bonds. The Magistrate must himself be satisfied that notwithstanding the initiation of the proceeding under Section 107 Cri. P. C. there is apprehension of breach of peace continuing till the termination o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1961]41ITR320(Orissa)
NARASIMHAM, C. J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The material facts are as follows. One Krutartha Acharya was formerly carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling hand-loom cloth, under the name of Sambalpur Bastralaya. Subsequently, in 1945, he decided to covert the business into a partnership taking some of his erstwhile employees as his partners. Accordingly on 27th December, 1945, a deed of partnership (exhibit A-1) was drawn up, in which he an four other employees were mentioned as partners. The fifth partner was said to be one Rabindra Nath Pradhan, minor son of one Krishna Chandra Pradhan. The shares of the various partners were specified in this document. Subsequently, on 25th July, 1951, the same partners executed another deed of partnership (exhibit A) in which it was recited that as the partnership deed of 1945 was not drafted properly and there were many legal and technical difficu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1960Ori183
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The material facts are as follows: One Kruthartha Acharya was formerly carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling handloom cloth, under the name of Sambalpur Bastralaya. Subsequently in 1945, he decided to convert the business into a partnership taking some of his erstwhile employees as his partners. Accordingly on 27-12-1945, a deed of partnership (Ext. A-1) was drawn up, in which he and four other employees were mentioned as partners. The fifth partner was said to be one Rabindra Nath Pradhan minor son of one Krishna Chandra Pradhan. The shares of the various partners were specified in this document. Subsequently, on 25-7-1951 the same partners executed another deed of partnership (Ext. A) in which it was recited that as the partnership deed of 1945 was not drafted properly and there were many legal and technical difficulties, the necess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori19
S. Barman, J. 1. The unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below, being defendants Michhu Kuanr, Chema Kuanr and Sarabhu Kuanr, are the appellants in this second appeal from a confirming decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Keonjhar, whereby he confirmed the decision of the learned Munsif, Anandapur, in Title Suit No. 123 of 1951.2. The dispute between the parties relates to a plot of land 1.83 acres fully described in the plaint schedule. The relevant facts leading to the present litigation between the parties are shortly stated, these: On March 22, 1949 one Aparti Kuanr being defendant No. 2 in the suit (now pro forma respondent No. 5 in this appeal) by a registered sale deed (Ex. 1) sold the suit land-area 1.83 acres as aforesaid to the plaintiffs-respondents Raghu Jena, Radhu Jena, Juja Jena and Budhj Jena (hereinafter referred to as the Jena Plaintiffs-respondents) for a consideration of Rs. 500/- said to have been received in cash by the said vendor Aparti Kuanr. Eight...
Tag this Judgment!