Orissa Court August 1963 Judgments
Rajkishore Sahu Vs. Pushraj Sagarmal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori86
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Defendant-1 is the petitioner. Money Smt No. 107 of 1957 was decreed for Rs. 2917.40 nP. against the petitioner on 3-10-1961. On 8-12-1961 M. A. No. 79 of 1961 was filed before the District Judge and on the same day the syapeltent filed an application for time to pay the deficit court-fees. This was allowed till 21-12-1961. Again the appellant applied for time which was granted tin 3-1-1962. On this date the application for time to pay the deficit court-foes was rejected and the appeal was dis-missed. On 31-1-1962 an application was filed to set aside the order of dismissal and to accept the court-fees. Misc. case No. 11 of 1962 was registered under Order 41, Rule 19, C. P. C. On 7-2-1962, the appellant filed process fee but no requisites for postal service. On 27-2-1962 postal requisites were filed and the Court ordered issue of notice on the opposite parties fixing 4-4-1962 for retain. Despite this order, and the fact that the requisites had been filed, processe...
Tag this Judgment!Sukdeb Padhan Vs. Nityananda Padhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori35
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner. His case is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 400/-on 6th February 1951 and usufructuarily mortgaged 'A' scheduled land on execution of an unregistered mortgage bond (Ex. 1). Delivery of possession was given on the same day and the plaintiff was in peaceful possession up to the last Baisakh Purnima corresponding to 20th April 1961 when the defendant forcibly trespassed and put the disputed land into his khas-possession. The defendant did not pay the loan despite repeated demands. The cause of action for the suit arose on 20-4-1961, the date of dispossession.2. The defendant denied the factum of loan, usufructuary mortgage, possession by the plaintiff and dispossession by himself. He, however, admitted execution of the document (Ex. 1).3. The learned S. C. C. judge found that the plaintiff advanced the loan of Rs. 400/- under Ex. 1 and was put into possession of the suit land, the usufruct of which was agreed to be appropriated t...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Parekh Vs. Lachminarayan Swalram and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori53; 29(1963)CLT613
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Babulal Parekh is the petitioner. He is not a party to Money Suit No. 270 of 1960 in the Court of the Second Munsif, Cuttack; but hewas the manager of defendant-1 (M/s. H.J. Vralal and Co.) at the relevant time. The suit was filed on 7-7-1960 with a prayer for attachment before judgment of the movables of the defendants. On 9-7-1960, Writ of attachment before judgment was issued. On 11-7-1960, defendant 1 entered appearance through the petitioner and prayed for recalling the order of attachment. The attachment matter was not heard on that day. On the question of undertaking the Court passed an order to the effect-'The defendant No. 1 has undertaken not to close down the business.'It is the violation of this undertaking which is the subject matter of this revision. It may be made clear at this stage that on 20-7-1960, the Court also passed an order to the effect-'The defendants are restrained from removing or alienating any property of the shop before furnishing se...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Kainta Meherani Vs. Damru Meher and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori94; 30(1964)CLT386
G. K. Misra, J. 1. Plaintitf is the petitioner. She was permitted to file the suit as a pauper. She obtained a preliminary decree for partition. In course of the final decree proceedings, she filed a petition for taking accounts of the mesne prows., By an order dated 13-12-1961, the learned Munsif new-'Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 1050/-from the defendant towards the mesne protits tor seven years in respect of her share. Plaintiff to pay the C. F. payable on the mesne profits by 18-12-1961.'The court-fee as directed was not paid, on 22-12-1951. the learned trial Court passed an order to the effect--'Since the plaintiff did not pay court-tee payable on. the mesne profits, there can be no decree in respect on the mesne profits.....The decree be made final.....On 11-1-1962 the final decree was sealed and signed, are 1-2-1962 the plaintiff filed an application to recall the order dated 23-12-1961. But this application was rejected on 12-2-1962 as no order had been pas...
Tag this Judgment!Kartika Ram Vs. Jagannath Misra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-1963
Reported in: 29(1963)CLT523; 1964CriLJ248
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a revision by the second party against a final order Under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code passed by the S. D. O., Cut-tack -Seder directing him to remove a Kutcha construction said to have been made by him on a public rasta in Cuttack town which is causing nuisance to the public. Proceedings Under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code were initiated on 16-7-1958 and usual notice was served on the petitioner. He entered appearance on 11-10-58 and denied the public right of way over the plot in question and urged that an enquiry Under Section 139-A Criminal Procedure Code should be held. The Magistrate thereupon called upon both parties to file their documents, heard them in full and after innumerable adjournments spread over several years at last disposed of the matter by a final order dated 1-2-1962. He has come to a clear finding as to whether there was any reliable evidence in support of the denial of the public right of way, as required by Sub...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. P. Krishnaswami Murty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori29
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Orissa against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur, decreeing the respondent-plaintff's suit for a declaration that the order discharging him from service passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Khondmals on 15th March 1952 (Ext. F) was, void and inoperative and for other consequential reliefs.2. The plaintiff was employed as a ministerial officer in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Khondmals at Phulbani. He first went on leave on 14th April 1951, for the purpose of undergoing survey training at Berhampur, but did not rejoin duty after completing the training and took leave from time to time on various grounds which need not be mentioned here. Ultimately, on 3-11-51 (see Ext. M/1) the Deputy Commissioner framed specific charges against the plaintiff for various acts of misconduct in the discharge of his duties and called upon him to show cause within seven days of the receipt of the charges as to 'why he may not be ...
Tag this Judgment!Trutia Mirdha and ors. Vs. Basudev Singh and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori123
Das, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against the appellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bolangir reversing the decision of the Munsif in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 2. This appeal was originally heard by Barman, J. who considering the importance of the question of law involved in this appeal, referred it to a Division Bench. 3. The relationship of the parties to the suit excepting the defendant 1 who is a stranger purchaser, would appear from the following genealogical table : MADHU ____________________|_______________________ | | | Ladara Matha Mangara ____________|_____________ | | | | | Dutia (D. 2) Trutia (P.1) Ganesh | | | | (Wife Mukta-D.3) Magsira (p.3) | | | Parikhit (P.2) | ________________________________________________|________________ | | | | | |Rushi Basu P.4 Gursu P.5 Dukalu P.6 Harekrushna P.7 Tika P.84. On 8-11-45, Mangara, father of the plaintiffs 4 to 8, Dutiya original defendant 2 and Ganesh father of plaintiff 3 a...
Tag this Judgment!Sheoduttrai Bholanath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and OrissA ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR121(Orissa)
NARASIMHAM C.J. - These two references under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act deal with the same question and are disposed of in one judgment. The question referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in S.J.C. No. 37 of 1962 is as follow :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessees application for registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1958-59 was barred by limitation under rule 2(a) of the Income-tax Rules?'In S.J.C. No. 36 of 1962, the same question has been referred to for the assessement year 1959-60 instead of 1958-59.The material facts are thes : A partnership firm consisting of (1) Bholanath Saha, (2) Bhagirath Saha and (3) Mohanlal Saha was registered as a firm under the Indian Partnership Act on January 28, 1946, bearing No. 3 of 1946. It was also registered under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act in due course and was assessed as a firm for...
Tag this Judgment!Mukta Devi Panda Vs. Harish Chandra Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori104
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner. On 4-9-61 Title Suit No. 17 of 1960 was posted for hearing in the Court of Munsif, Rayagada. Petitioner's case is that she had taken steps for summoning her witnesses for that day. She had engaged two pleaders--Sri V. K. Rao and Sri N. K. Das. The latter had been to Cuttack prior to 4-9-1961 on some urgent personal work. Sri V. K. Rao had to suddenly go to Jeypore in a professional work on 3-9-1961. A petition for adjournment was filed by the registered clerk of Sri V. K. Rao on 4-9-1961 for accommodation for one day only, that is, till 5-9-1961, to enable Sri Rao to come back to Rayagada to conduct the suit. On 4-9-1961 the pleader's clerk filed the petition without affixing court-fee as the stamp vendor was absent by the time. After filing the petition, the clerk went to the house of the Stamp Vendor to fetch court-fee. In the meantime the suit was called and dismissed. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9, C. P....
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Representing Railways Vs. Endupudi Narsimham and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ori34
S. Barman, J.1. The unsuccessful railway defendants in the Courts below are the appellants. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4875-19nP. against the Central Railway, Bombay, Southern Railway, Madras and South Eastern Railway, Calcutta.2. The material facts are these: On March 16, 1958, Hyderabad Asbestas Cement Products Limited, Hyderabad consigned 200 A. C. Sheets and 100 pairs of serrated ridges from Santanagar on Central Railway for delivery at Berhampur (Ganjam) on South Eastern Railway. The plaintiff belonging to Berhampur (Ganjam) purchased the goods through the State Bank of India at Berhampur (Ganjam) and released the Railway receipt and then wanted delivery of the goods. Admittedly the wagon containing the assignment was by mistake sent to Berhampur on Central Railway instead of the station of destination, namely Berhampur, Ganjam. It is said that the consignment was unloaded at Berhampur on Central Railway. After about 4 mont...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »