Orissa Court December 1962 Judgments
Picharu Bhati and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-22-1962
Reported in: 1964CriLJ117
G.K. Misra, J.1. Appellants 1 to 8 in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1962 are respectively respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in Government appeal No. 20 of 1962. They have been convicted Under Section 148, IPC and each has been sentenced to R. I. for one year thereunder. Accused No. 1 (Picharu1 Bhati) has been further convicted Under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for 11 years. Accused No. 2 (Banshi Bhati) has been further convicted Under Section 304, Pt. II, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for 4 years. Accused No. 3 (Rajaram Dinda) has been further convicted Under Section 325, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for 3 years - (though imposition of fine is compulsory Under Section 325, no fine has been imposed on him).Accused 4 (Bhaira Bhati) has been further convicted Under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for one year. Accused 5 (Chaitan Bhati) has been further convicted Under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for one year. Accused 6 (Jujesthi RahaJ has been further convicted Under Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Bira Sethi and ors. Vs. Purusottam Misra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori118
R.K. Das, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the reversing judgment of the Additional District Judge of Berhampur dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction and damages.2. The plaintiffs' case is that they owned and possessed the suit lands for rendering service as washermen in the whole Inam village Davanidhipur and have been in possession and enjoyment thereof since the time of their fore-fathers in lieu of their services. On 29-11-54 defendants 1 to 14 forcibly removed the paddy sheaves from about three Bharanams of suit lands and thus put them to a loss of Rs. 60/-. The plaintiffs thus filed the present suit for permanently restraining the said defendants from interfering with their possession and also for recovery of damages of Rs. 60/- being the money value of the crops removed.3. The case of the defendants 1 to 14 was that no lands were assigned to the plaintiffs or their ancestors as 'Washerman Service Inam' and the plaintiffs were never in possession of th...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Vasudevan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori107; [1963]14STC220(Orissa)
Barman, J. 1. The Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, in its statement of case dated June 19, 1962 referred the following question of law to this Court for decision :'Whether old Rule 65 (new Rule 90) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules is discriminatory and therefore offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India,'2. A preliminary point was taken on behalf of the Sales Tax Department that the reference is not competent for the reason that if Rule 65 is discriminatory it is void under Article 14 of the Constitution and that in consequence the proceedings under Section 24(2) (3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which the reference has been made are not maintainable. The Department's point is that the dealer's contention, -- that Rule 65 offends Article 14, -- is not one which the Sales Tax Tribunal constituted under the Act could refer under Section 24 (3), its duty being merely to administer the Act. This contention, however, has no force in the face of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. D. Paraju
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori126; 29(1963)CLT373
Narasimham, C.J.1. The appeal and revision are against one order dated 9-2-61 of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack reversing the Judgment passed by him in M. S. No. 181 of 1958 and modifying the same. The plaintiff in that suit was an employee of the S.E. Railway who was dismissed from service and subsequently reinstated. He claimed arrears of salary for the period during which he was under orders of dismissal. The Court by its order dated 23-8-60 passed a preliminary decree directing the appointment of a pleader Commissioner to take account of various sums due to the plaintiff. Subsequently the plaintiff filed a review petition before the same court purporting to be one under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 151 of that Code. The main ground taken there was that a ruling reported in State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, AIR 1954 SC 245 had been referred to, but not cited, by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff during the hearing of the main suit. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Subran Bibi and anr. Vs. Kulsam Bibi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori120
Barman, J. 1. This is a court-fee reference before me as the taxing Judge on a reference made by the Taxing Officer (Registrar of this Court). The question that has been raised on the reference is, whether in this case the proper court-fee leviable on the plaint, on the memorandum of appeal in the lower appellate Court as also in this second appeal should be the fixed court-fee under Article 17-A, Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act or ad valorem court-fee payable under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act.2. The determination of proper court-fee depends on the real nature of the suit. The scrutiny ought to be very cautious. The Court is not to import into the plaint anything which it does not really contain, either actually or by necessary implication. That is to say, the Court is to take the plaint as it is and not as it may think it ought to have been in the way that the relief, not asked for deliberately, and the plaintiff takes the risk in that behalf cannot be imported into the plaint. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori111; 29(1963)CLT179
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. These two revisions arise out of two orders dated the 28th February 1961 and 29th April 1961, passed by the Second Munsif, Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 297 of 1960, rejecting the petitioner's claim of privilege under Section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, in respect of certain documents called for by the opposite party plaintiff.2. The plaintiff was formerly working as an Assistant in Cuttack Collectorate. Subsequently in 1950 he was appointed to the higher post of District Organiser and then of Assistant National Savings Officer in a Central Govt. Office known as the Regional National Savings Organisation and worked in those posts on a higher salary, for about 10 years. On the 20th July 1960, he was informed that the National Savings Commissioner had decided to revert him to his parent post in the office of the Cuttack Collectorate.He then filed a suit alleging that the reversion was made mala fide on account of some personal animosity towards him ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Prasad Deb Vs. Bhanuganga Tribhuban Deb
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Ori8
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Member, Election Tribunal, Sambalpur, dismissing with costs, the election petition filed by the appellant against the election of the respondent from Rairakhol Constituency in the district of Sambalpur in the midterm elections to the Orissa Legislative Assembly which were held on the 2nd June, 1961. The appellant stood as the Congress candidate in the said election while the respondent stood as a candidate on behalf of the Ganatantra Parishad which consisted mainly of the former Rulers of the feudatory States of Orissa. The respondent is the erstwhile Ruler of Bamra, one of the former Feudatory States of Orissa. It appears that the ruling families of both Rairakhol and Bamra are related to each other and the Jubaraj Sahib of Rairakhol was said to have actively canvassed for the respondent in the said elections. The constituency includes portions of the former State of Bamra and Rairakhol.2. The main challenge to the election...
Tag this Judgment!Nityananda Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Madhusudan Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori99
R.I. Narasimham, C.J. 1. These four appeals arise out of one judgment passed under Section 47 C. P. C. by the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur in two execution petitions (E. P. 48 of 1958 and E. P. 73 of 1958), The facts which are somewhat complicated are as follows. Appellant Nityananda Mohapatra (hereinafter referred to as the attaching decree-holder) obtained a decree on 10-1-1938 in O. S. No. 514 of 1935, in the Court of the Munsif of Aska, against one Madhusudhan Mohapatra (hereinafter referred to as the transferor decree-holder) and others. The decree was made absolute on 9-5-1942. In execution of that decree, in E. P. 75 of 1943, Nityananda Mohapatra attached the decree obtained by the transferor decree-holder in O. S. 48 of 1935 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur. The attachment of that decree was made final on 24-6-44. But prior to that attachment Madhusudhan transferred the decree in favour of his wife Kousalya Devi (hereinafter referred to as the transferee-decre...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Naik and anr. Vs. Khageswar Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori130
Barman, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs respondents against the defendants appellants for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession, alternatively for recovery of the plaint scheduled lands. The trial Court decreed the suit in part in respect of Ga and Gha Schedule lands measuring 75 decimals and 82 decimals respectively and their possession was confirmed in respect of the same. In respect of Ka, Kha, Gha and Una schedule lands (which form the subject matter of this second appeal) the trial court declared that the plaintiffs have got no exclusive right over the same. As against the said decision of the trial Court the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The learner lower appellate Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and declared the plaintiffs' alleged right over the disputed Ka, Kha, Gha, and Una schedule lands and confirmed the plaintiffs' possession in respect thereof. Hence this second appeal.2. A genealogical ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhobei Charan Sahu Vs. Official Liquidator of Sri Jagannath Industries ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori220
Misra, J. 1. The appellant and Lala Nagendrg Kumar Roy constituted the Managing Agency Firm, called the Bhubaneshwar Traders, to the Company Sri Jagannath Industries Limited (in liquidation), hereinafter to be referred to as the Company. On 30th October, 1958, the appellant filed a claim on two counts (i) Rs. 2226/9/- towards a portion of his monthly remuneration from 1st October 1949 till 31st October 1954; and (ii) Rs. 1400/- outstanding from the loans advanced by him on different dates.2. His claim was disallowed by the learned Company judge on the following findings :--(I) 'Records shows that the Company did not workexcept casually for about 3/4 (3 or 4) months in 1951on some road contract which, however, does not appearto be included in any of the objects, for which the company was established. xxxxxHaving regard to the state of the Company which had notyot started work with any of the objects for which itwas established and the fact that neither of the ManagingAgents ever claimed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›