Orissa Court May 1963 Judgments
Prabhulal Thakur Vs. Indian Union
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori82; 29(1963)CLT527
S. Barman, J. 1. Does over-carriage of a partway wages containing suit consignment by the ordinary route accord-ing to ordinary train arrangements, amount to deviation on the facts and in the circumstances of this case in the main question involved in this appeal. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit against the South Eastern Railway for recovery of Rs. 2867-6-9 for short delivery ot goods consigned in the circumstan-ces hereinafter stated. 2. On March 13, 1957, 338, tins of (sic) were booked at BanKura Railways Station (West Bengal) to be delivered to the plaintiff at Jaiasow (sic) district in Orissa). On March 19t 1953 the whole wagon, containing the said consignment reached (sic) the wagon, however, was not detached from the goods train. it is said that the driver and the guard refuses to detach the wagon on the plea that their duly, was (sic) and their relievers had not come. Any wan, the (sic) puted fact is that the wagon was carried up to (sic) rak. on Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudhan Ray and anr. Vs. Ananta Charan Behera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Ori183; 29(1963)CLT460
G.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment. Plaintiff No. 2 is the son of plain-tiff-1. Plaintiff-1 had a brother named Haraprasad who died in 1954. Haraprasad's wife is Jadi, who is not a party to the suit. Jadi executed a registered sale deed (Ex. 4) on 24th July 1956 in favour of the defendant. Plaintiffs' case was that piaintiff-2 was the adopted son of Haraprasad and Jadi had no power of alienation of the disputed land without legal necessity. The suit was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession and also for setting aside the sale deed. The defendant contested the suit alleging that plaintiff-2 was not the adopted son of Haraprasad, and that on the death of Haraprasad Jadi was entitled to his interest under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, and she had absolute power of disposal subsequent to Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called the Act.)2. The Courts below conc...
Tag this Judgment!Sevaram Pasari and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori14; 29(1963)CLT470; 1964CriLJ64
Narasimham, C.J.1. These four petitions were heard together and are disposed of in one judgment.2. There is a private company named Sambalpur Transport and Trading Company (Private) Ltd. at Bargarh of which one Sevaram Pansari (Petitioner in Criminal Revisions 325 and 326 of 1962) is the Managing Director and Ganpatram Pansari and Khemchand Agarwalla are the Directors. It has been held as a fact that for the two financial years ending on 31-10-58 and 31-10-59 no General meeting of the Company was held (either during that year or within 9 months thereafter). This amounts to contravention of Section 166 of the Companies Act 1956 which is punishable under Section 168 of that Act. Similarly it has been found as a fact that the balancesheet and the Profit and Loss Accounts of the Company for the said two years were not laid before the annual general meeting as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of that Act. This amounts to an offence punishable under Sub-section (5) of that Section....
Tag this Judgment!Narahari Mohanti and ors. Vs. Ghanashyam Bal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Ori186
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. They brought the suit as representatives of village Panchapara under 0. I, Rule 8, C. P. C. Their case is as follows :The disputed lands constitute 2.32 acres in plots 659 and 2171 in Khata 290 of village Panchapara in the district of Balasore. The lands have been recorded as Gochar and included in Rakshit (Reserved) Holding No. 290. Defendants 1 to 7 are the ex-landlords of the village and defendants 8 to 11 are the lessees in respect of different portions of, the suit lands from defendants 1 to 7. The cause of action arose on 7th June 1954 when the defendants 8 to 11 dug foundation pits and when the plaintiffs came to know of an order of exchange sanctioned by the Collector. On that day the plaintiffs on enquiry cams to learn that the petition had been filed by some of the ex-landlords in which they alleged that they intended to prepare a fruit and vegetable garden in the vicinity of Chand-balli town; that the disputed lands were u...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Charan Das Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori65; 30(1964)CLT49
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Government of Orissa in the Home Department No. 21446/P/ SSS/7/62 dated the 4th September 1962 (annexure 6 to the writ petition) rejecting his prayer for confirmation as a Registrar in the Orissa Secretariat with effect from the earlier date, for (he purpose of fixation of his pension.2. The admitted material facts are as follows:The petitioner joined as an assistant in the Old Bihar and Orissa Secretariat, prior to the formation of the Province of Orissa and when that Province was formed with effect from the 1st April 1936, he was transferred to the Orissa Secretariat, Home Department. Thereafter he was in due course promoted to higher posts such as Junior Head Assistant, and Senior Head Assistant.On 24th April 1954 while holding the post of Senior Head Assistant he was promoted temporarily as Registrar in the Supply Department of the Orissa Secretariat. On 22nd December 1954 he wa...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushalya Meherani and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori93; 29(1963)CLT579; 1964CriLJ421
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a revision against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Bolangir maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 406 I. P. C. and the sentence of fine passed on him for that offence by a first class Magistrate of Bolangir.2. The prosecution case against the petitioner, which was believed by the two lower courts, was that the complainant (P. W. 1) had pledged a pair of gold ornaments (Karnaphula and Dandi) and a pair of silver bangles (Kaliari) for a sum of Rs. 260/- with one Tila Meher sometime in 1958. As lie was unable to pay Interest on the same, he executed another document for Rs. 301/- on 12-11-58. On 6-7-60 he went to the house of the petitioner for redeeming the ornaments and paid him Rs. 311/- (including the principal sum of Rs. 260/-and interest of Rs. 51/-). The petitioner thereupon placed the ornaments in the hands of P. W. 1. But when P. W. 1 examined the same, he found that they had been used in the meanwhile. Hen...
Tag this Judgment!Kerodimal Khandelwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Ori188
G.K. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment. On 15th January 1957 plaintiff indented 110bags of sugar from Sakri to Amarda Road. The articles werebooked in two wagons. 100 bags reached the destinationand on 29th January 1957 these bags were delivered tothe plaintiff by defendant I. The other ten bags, which werebooked in another wagon, were not delivered at all. There-after the plaintiff served a Registered notice (Ex. 4) under Section 80, C. P. C. on defendant 1 on 9th January 1958. Areply was sent by defendant 1 under Ex. 5 dated 3rd March1958. The suit was filed on 23rd June 1958. Defendants2 and 3 were added as parties to the suit on 8th September1959. 2. Defendant 1 mainly contested the suit. The nondelivery and the quantum of damage were admitted. The validity of the notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80, C. P. C. was questioned and a plea was taken that the suit was barred by limitation.3. The Courts below concurrently r...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Chandramohan Singh Lal Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-02-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ461
R.K. Das, J.1. The appellant Chandramohan Singh Lai alias Bayalal has been convicted Under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for one year by an order dated 23-7-62 of the Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore, in Sessions Case No. 71/62.2. Sometime after the evening of 57-9-61 one Mangu Bhatra (deceased) of village Sashahandi was returning from his field with a stick in his hand. On his way, he met appellant and two others (since acquitted) near a culvert on the Borigumma-Kotpad road when the appellant enquired about the identity of the deceased to which the deceased replied that he was a man. To his further enquiry as to his identity the deceased reported that he was their- God. At this the appellant snatched away the stick from his hand and assaulted the deceased with it by dragging him to a mango tree where he was further assaulted by the appellant and his two companions. After the assault, the deceased returned to his home and immediately reported this matter to different persons i...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. JaIn Vs. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori72; 29(1963)CLT554
Misra, J.1. A. H. O. 13 of 1961 and A. H Os. 2 to 14 of 1962 were allowed on 18-4-63. By a separate order on the very day, all interim orders passed in the case including the one appointing Shri G.C. Das as Court's nominee in the interim Board of Directors were vacated with effect from that date. This application has been filed on 19-4-63 on behalf of Mr. S.P. Jain, the petitioner in the Company Act case, asking for three reliefs. Those are to direct the appellants in all the aforesaid A. H. Os. (I) not to permit and effect any transfer of the 39,000 shares dealt with in the judgment, (2) not to alter the constitution of the Board of Directors prior to the judgment dated 18-4-63, and (3) not to issue any further shares. The second prayer was not pressed at the time of hearing.2. The averment in the petition is to the effect that the petitioner has not been able to procure a certified copy of the judgment, on account of which he has not been able to file an application for leave to Supr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›