Orissa Court September 1962 Judgments
Bankabehari Das Vs. Chittaranjan Naik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori83
Barman, J. 1. The election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly of the Respondent Chittaranjan Naik from Binjharpur constituency in the mid-term election held in June, 1961 was challenged by the petitioner (appellant herein) Bankabehari Das, one of the defeated candidates, on several grounds stated in the election petition. 2. Out of the numerous grounds on which the election of the respondent was challenged, the peti-tioner confined himself to only a few grounds so far as this appeal is concerned. The only grounds on which the petitioner relies herein are shortly stated these ; That the respondent was disqualified for the membership of the; State Legislature under Section 7(e) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by reason of his having been the Managing Director of Kalinga Foundry Ltd. at Dhenkanal in the district of Cuttack in which the Government of Orissa is said to have majority shares in the capital; that the respondent committed certa...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagabat Sit Vs. Balaram Sit
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori61; 28(1962)CLT635
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Defendant is the petitioner. The facts leading to the Civil Revision are as follows:Plaintiff-Opposite Party filed Original suit No. 278 of 1944 in the Court of the Munsif, Balasore for redemption of the mortgage by conditional sale D/- 27th July 1934 and the suit was decreed on 25th August 1946. The mortgage dues, payable by the mortgagor to the mortgagee, were deposited on 22nd September 1945. The decree of the learned Munsif was ultimately confirmed by the High Court in second appeal No. 342 of 1947 on 30th July 1951, and the High Court allowed six months' time for redemption from the date of the judgment. Plaintiff filed an application for making the decree final on 14th March 1957. The learned Munsif dismissed this application on 20th January 1959 holding that the application was barred by limitation under Article 181 of the Limitation Act as the decree-holder-mortgagor failed to apply within three years of the deposit and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act...
Tag this Judgment!Lokenath Sahu and ors. Vs. Rahas Beura
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori52; 1963CriLJ308
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a revision against the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar convicting the petitioners under Section 323,1. P. C. and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- each; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days each. The petitioners were placed on trial for offences under Section 323, I. P. C. and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act on the allegation that on I0th August, 1961 in the evening they forcibly rescued their cattle, while they were being taken to the cattle., pound by the complainant. At the time, of rescue, they were alleged to have caused injuries to the complainant. It was alleged by the complainant that the cattle damaged his paddy crop in a field known as Haribandha Chak in village Kantabad. The complainant saw the damage and also noticed that petitioners Rama Sethi and Govinda Sahu were standing on a ridge close-by and deliberately allowed the cattle to graze the paddy crops. When they did not listen t...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan Gobindram Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori56; 29(1963)CLT106
G.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Plaintiff claimed Rs. 1168/- as damages on account of shortage of sugar of 31 maunds 103/4 seers. The consignment was delivered to North Eastern Railway for delivery at Bamra Station on South Eastern Railway.2. The North Eastern Railway did not contest the suit. The South Eastern Railway filed a written statement admitting the quantum of damage but challenging the notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act.3. The learned Munsif held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the loss occurred on the South Eastern Railway and that the plaintiff had cause of action against the North Eastern Railway hut not against South Eastern Railway. He further held that there was valid service of notice on South Eastern Railway under Section 77 but there was no service on North Eastern Railway. He accordingly dismissed the suit against both.4. An appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed bv the Additional Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur. Against th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›