Orissa Court September 1960 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.
Municipal Councillors of Puri Municipality Vs. Madhusudhan Das Mohapat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori133
S. Barman, J.1. The main point involved in this second appeal is a question of limitation, arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Municipal Council of Puri Municipality represented by its Chairman and another for, inter alia, compensation for damages alleged to have been caused by obstruction to the plaintiff in his right of free access to the shop room which was the subject-matter of the suit.2. The plaintiffs cause of action against the defendants was the alleged obstruction to the shop room and deprivation of his right to light and air to the said shop room on the facts and circumstances as stated in the plaint. The defence taken was that the Municipality had a statutory right to grant temporary licence to the defendant No, 2 for holding a betel stall on a platform which is alleged to have caused the aforesaid obstruction; that in fact there was no obstruction as alleged and consequently no damage was caused to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff had no prescriptive ...
Dhadi Dalai Vs. Basudeb Satpathy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori129
J.K. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff, who was successful in the trial Court but lost in the first appeal, is the appellant here. Defendant No. 1 is a purchaser of the suit property from) defendant No. 2, a widow, and her daughter defendant No. 3, through a registered instrument (Ext. B) executed and registered on 18-8-54 for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- paid in cash. Defendant No. 2 inherited the suit property from her husband and was in possession thereof.On 25-7-54 the plaintiff got from defendant No. 2 an unregistered agreement for sale of the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 1300/- on payment of Rs. 300/- in cash and with a promise to pay the residual money later on. It was about 20 days after this agreement for sale in the plaintiffs favour, defendant No. 2 executed the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 with the concurrence of her only issue defendant No. 3. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance.Defendant No. 2 did not contest the...
Koshal Industries Development Syndicate Ltd. Through Dinabandhu Tripat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori80
ORDERS. Barman, J. 1. This is an application by the Liquidator of the Koshal Industries Development Syndicate Ltd. under Section 518 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956) for determination of two questions, namely, (i) Whether the Liquidator can validly pay to the auction-purchaser Share-holders the first return in pursuance of the declaration referred to in the petition; (ii) If the Hon'ble Court decides that the first return is payable to the opposite parties, should the liquidator refund the purchase money to the auction purchasers and exercise lien for dues afresh on shares of apposite parties arising out, of the facts and circumstances as stated in the petition of Liquidator. 2. The relevant facts are these: On August 17, 1945 the said Company was registered under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913. On April 7, 1956 the Company sold 300 fully paid-up shares of Rs. 10/- each belonging to one Jugal Kishore Pansai (opposite party No. 2 herein) by auction for a sum of R...
Ganesh Hota and anr. Vs. Purushottam Misra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori97
G.C. Das, J. 1. These two appeals by defendants 2 and 3 were heard together and they are governed by this common judgment. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit, T. S. No. 1112/52, for partition of 12 Bharanams of land which he purchased from one Anta Misra and his brothers by a registered sale-deed, Ext. 1, on April 24, 1951. The disputed lands according to the plaintiffs were purchased by him under three transactions. First of all, Raghunath Purohit, the brother of Lingaraj Purohit, who are the sons of one Mahadeb Purohit sold five Bharanams of land to Maheshwar Misra, the father of Ananta Misra by a registered sale deed (Ex. 17), dated June 26, 1922. Lingaraj had a son by the first wife named Basudeb who is defendant No. 1. By his second wife he had two sons Ganesh and Jagannath who are defendants 2 and 3. Thereafter Basudeb (defendant 1), sold three Bharanams of land on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the defendants 2 and 3 to Ananta Misra by another sale deed (Ex. 18) dated June 22...
Banambar Das, Executive Officer Vs. Udayanath Pattanaik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori148
S. Barman, J.1. The question of creditor's right of appropriation under the Indian Contract Act. is the main point involved in this second appeal filed by the Executive Officer, Endowment Trustee Board Dakhinparswa alias Sree Ramdas Math, Town Puri (defendant No. 3 in the suit) as the appellant from a reversing decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri, whereby he modified the decree of the learned Munsif and decreed the plaintiff's suit in full for arrears of salary, on the facts and circumstances hereinafter stated.2. The defendant Mahant Jagannath Ramanuj Das as Marfatdar of Sri Jagannath Mahapravu deity employed the plaintiff as his law agent under verbal agreement at a monthly salary of Rs. 25/- and 12 Gounies of paddy. The plaintiff worked as such agent but due to his having incurred dissatisfaction of the Mahant, the plaintiff had to leave service on February 11, 1955. The amount claimed by the plaintiff in the suit was for Rs, 1,144/6/9 (inclusive of Rs. 859/2/9, the bala...
Krushna Chandra Das Vs. the Orissa Textile Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori91
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. This is an application by a debtor that he may be adjudged insolvent under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (Act V of 1920) on the ground that he is unable to pay his debts, in the circumstances stated in the petition. This application was opposed by his creditors the Orissa Textile Mills Ltd., one Gorisankar Sangnaria, the Official Liquidator of Puri Bank Ltd., the State o Orissa representing the Divisional Forest Officer, Athgarh. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the State of Orissa, however, retired from the case, after making a statement to this Court that the dues against some defaulting contractors of Athgarh, including the present petitioner for insolvency, had been written off by the Government and therefore the State of Orissa representing the Divisional Forest Officer, Atgarh, is no longer one of the Creditors. 2. The petitioner Krushna Chandra Das was examined in chief by the learned counsel appearing for him and he was also cross-ex...
Rama Jena Vs. Gadadhar Senapati and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori118; 1961CriLJ130
S. Barman, J.1. What amounts to prosecution for purposes of malicious prosecution?-- is the only question involved in the defendant's second appeal from a reversing decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri whereby ho set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif and decreed the plaintiff's suit for malicious prosecution.2. The facts are few and simple : On June 13, 1953, the defendant complainant (appellant herein) lodged a First Information Report at Puri, Sadar Police Station to the effect that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted him, his wife and son in his betel garden, set fire to his betel garden and thereby caused damage to the extent of Rs. 2000/-.The Police investigated into the case and on completion of investigation submitted final report to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Puri, to drop the criminal proceeding on the ground thatit was false and he further submitted a complain1 against the complainant for prose...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›