Orissa Court June 1961 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.
Kishori Mukhi Vs. Dhaneswar Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ori110
ORDERS. Barman, J. 1. The plaintiff is the petitioner, in this Civil Revision, directed against an order of the learned Munsif, Kendrapara, in T. S. No. 111/56 and Misc. case No. 166/59, whereby he, while dismissing an application for setting aside a compromise petition on the ground of fraud, allowed a decree in terms of the said compromise, in the circumstances hereinafter stated. 2. The matter arose thus; The plaintiff filed a suit being T. S. No. 111 of 1956 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession regarding Ka schedule land and declaration of right of way over Kha sch. lands and also for an injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 3 from obstructing the plaintiff's right of possession. There were eight defendants in the suit of whom defendant No. 1 alone appeared. There was, however, no written statement filed by any of the defendants. On December 6, 1958 a compromise is stated to have been brought about among the parties at the intervention of the Bhadraloks ...
State Vs. Bhimcharan Mandal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-29-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ori139
ORDERG.C. Das, Actg. C.J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, recommending to set aside the Order of the Magistrate, 1st Glass, Rai-rangpur, dated November 30, 1960, in G. R. Case No. 363 of 1959. The facts are tee : The accused persons were charged under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, for the offence of cheating by false impersonation as Government Amin. The charge-sheet shows that he cheated a number of persons. Out of these persons, the prosecution examined a few and wanted to examine the rest. This prayer of the prosecution was rejected by the learned Magistrate. The relevant order is as follows : 'The C. S. I. ought to have moved for examination of these witnesses earlier. The material witnesses have been examined. Those witnesses are to repeat the facts what others have stated on the same line. Hence the prayer of the C. S. I. cannot be entertained.'2. The ground taken by the learned Magistrate was that the witnesses sought to be examined will repea...
State Vs. Gundicha Bhoi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-29-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ori172; 28(1962)CLT262
ORDERG.C. Das, Actg. C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Code of Cr. procedure by the learned Session Judge, Puri, recommending to quash the commitment made by the Magistrate, 1st Class, in G. R. Case No. 695/60. The main ground for this reference appears to be a decision of this Court in the case of State v. Anadi, ILR 1958 Cut 89 : (AIR 1958 Orissa 241). It was decided in that case that the Magistrate had committed a serious illegality when there were witnesses to the actual commission of the offence arid they had not been examined by him under Section 207A (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before commencing the enquiry. It was further observed that without examining any witness during the commitment enquiry, the Magistrate examined the accused persons under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (6) of Section 207-A of the Code says that such examination of the accused should be made for the purposes of enabling him to explain any circumstanc...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. H.K. Sahebranka
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-21-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC990(Orissa)
G.C. Das, Ag. C.J.1. The sole question referred to this Court by the Member, Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, under Section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act is :Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case it was legal for the assessing officer and for the matter of that the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax while dealing with assessment proceeding under Section 12 to assess the amounts falling under Section 9-B(3) of the Act and to direct recovery of such amount in a demand notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act ?2. The facts giving rise to this reference are these : The dealer-assessee H. K. Sahebranka, is a registered: dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act bearing Registration No. CU 13768. He was assessed under Section 12(2) (b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for the quarter ending on 30th June, 1954. The commodity concerned was certain mill-made cloth. The question arose whether the sales of such mill-made cloth were effected by the dealer-assessee as the first dealer. The s...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›