Orissa Court December 1964 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.
Nakula Barik and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Ori1; 1967CriLJ97
G.K. Misra, J. 1. Of the six accused persons three were acquitted. Bula Sahu (appellant 3) has been convicted under Section 333, I P C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs 100 in default to undergo R. I. for a term of six months. Nakula (appellant 1) and Narasingha Parida (appellant 2) have been convicted under Section 332, I. P. C. and each has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Prosecution case is as follows: In the early morning of 22-9-63 Abdul Manan (P.W.. 1), the Forest Guard of Kothagada Beat, went to Sulia Reserve Forest in the ex-State of Ranpur on patrol duty in his uniform in the company of Hari Fora (P.W.. 2) and Antara Sahu (P.W.. 8). At Bankanalia Khula inside the reserved Forest, the 6 accused persons were tying into bundles pieces of wood already cut by them from that very place. P.W.. 1 seized the 6 Katuris (M Os. I, to I e). They saw the trees which had been cut, the accused were asked to carry the nine...
Padmanava Singh Deo Vs. Smt. Rajkishori Devi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori138
Misra, J.1. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties-- BRAJAKISHORE ________________________________|___________________________ | | Brojeswari Devi D.2 Rajkishori Devi D.1 | _____________|_____________________ | | Padmanava Singh Deo Ananta Narayan D.3 (Plaintiff) | _______|____________________________ | | Khirode Kumari D.4 Roma Kumari D.5Brajakishore, the last holder of the impartible estate of Dharakote died on 3-10-1938. Plaintiff and defendant No. 3 are his sons through defendant-2. Defendant-1 is the step-mother of plaintiff and defendant-3 Defendants 4 and 5 are the daughters of the plaintiff and were born in 1947 and 1948 respectively. Till then the Court of Wards was in charge of the management of the estates. The Court of Wards fixed the maintenance of defendant-1 at Rs. 200/- by an order dated 1-12-1939. This rate was enhanced Rs. 300/- on 21-3-1941 and to Rs. 350/- on 4-1-1945. Plaintiff continued to pay at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month till Jun...
Bairagi Das Vs. Sri Uday Chandra Mahatab and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori201
Barman, J.1. The main point for consideration in this appeal is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, alienation of deities with all their properties and the Sebaiti and Marfatdari rights under a, deed of gift was valid in law. The plaintiffs-respondents herein claim to be Sebait-Marfatdars of deities. Sri Dhyandas Mahapurus and Sri Radhakrishna Jew Thakur installed at Bardang Math in mouza Bardang included in Touzi No. 14 in the district of Cuttack by virtue of a deed of gift described as deed of settlement dated August 11, 1960 executed by Sir Uday Chand Mahatab, Maharajadhiraj Bahadur of Burdwan, at present residing in Calcutta, in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 Bairagi Das who is the appellant herein challenged the validity of the said deed and an issue was framed accordingly. It was argued that the said deed by which the Maharajadhiraj Bahadur purported to transfer the deities and their properties was not for the benefit of the deities and it was n...
Haribux Gouri Sankar Firm and ors. Vs. Subhakaran Tulsiram and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori211
Barman, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs appellants for recovery of Rs. 5,318-15-9 as price of 200 tins of groundnut oil alleged to have been supplied on February 29, 1952 on credit to defendant No. 1 Messrs. Subhakaran Tulsiram a firm of which defendant No. 2 Tulsiram is said to be the managing proprietor. The plaintiffs also claimed Rs. 1,436-0-3 as interest, the total amount claimed in the suit being Rs. 6,755/-. The suit was filed on February 28, 1955 after giving notice. In support of the plaintiff's claim they relied on certain entries in Jama Bahi Ext. 1 and Ledger, Ext. 2. In defence the plaintiffs' alleged claim was denied. It is alleged that the suit was filed out of enmity due to litigation between the parties with which back-ground we are not directly concerned for the purpose of deciding this case. The learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit mainly on the ground that the books of account on which the plaintiffs mainly relied were no...
Prannath Samantarai Vs. Bhagirathi Sahoo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori196; 1965CriLJ657
R.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the Talcher Notified Area Council against an order o acquittal passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Talcher, in a case under Section 386 of the Orissa Municipal Act, for contravention of the provisions of Section 290 (1) (s) of the said Act.2. The respondent was alleged to have carried on timber business within the limits of Talcher notified Area without obtaining a license--as required by Section 290 (1) (d) of the said Act. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate held, on facts, that the respondent carried on the timber business without a license within the limits of Talcher Notified Area. But he acquitted him, relying on a Bench decision of the Court in Gurucharan Singh v. Executive Officer, Jeypore Municipality, 29 Cut L T 611 where it was held that before prosecuting a person for contravention of any of the clauses of Sub-section (1) of Section 290 of the Municipal Act, it must first be established that the local authority concerne...
Braja Kishore Das Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori183; (1965)ILLJ265Ori
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by a former member of the Orissa State Judicial Service, challenging the validity of the order of the Government of Orissa, in the law Department, in their letter No. 7110-C dated 1st November 1962, directing the compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service.2. The petitioner was duly absorbed as a Munsif in the Orissa Judicial Service and was, in due course, promoted to officiate as Subordinate Judge in 1955. He was transferred to Sambalpur in June, 1957. While he was working there, various allegations of corruption, failure to discharge his duties properly, and other acts of misconduct, came to the notice of his superior authorities : and there was also a resolution passed by the Sambalpur Bar Association against his work. Preliminary enquiries were made into these allegations, and then, after his transfer to Koraput he was placed under suspension on the 9th November 1959 by the District Judge of K...
Bhagirathi Padhan and ors. Vs. Achuta Padhan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori193
G.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff's suit for partition was decreed on 26-9-62 by the Munsif of Angul. Defendants appellants filed Title Appeal No. 8 of 1962 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal, on 29-11-62. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the appeal was barred by limitation by three days. He rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for condoning the delay. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation. Against the appellate decree, the second appeal and the Civil Revision have been filed.It has been held in Civil Revision No. 34 of 1963 that a Civil Revision is not maintainable against the order dismissing the appeal as being barred by limitation as it amounts to a decree. In that view of the matter, Civil Revision No. 251/63 is dismissed as not maintainable.2. The first question for consideration is whether there was delay in filing the appeal before the Subordinate Judge. To appreciate the co...
State of Orissa Vs. Khetra Mohan Singh
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori126; 1965CriLJ107
Barman, J.1. Khetra Mohan Singh, contingent Bill Clerk attached to the Bacteriologist section of the Veterinary Directorate, Government of Orissa, was acquitted of the charge of having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 700 admittedly entrusted with him by the Treasury Sarkar in the Office of the Director of Veterinary Services, Orissa, Cuttack. The defence of the accused was that he handed over the money to the Drawing Officer of the bill in question.2. On March 26, 1961, the accused gave for encashment a contingent bill for Rs. 700 to the Treasury Sarkar in Cuttack Veterinary Office. The treasury Sarkar drew the amount from the State Rank of India, Cuttack and made over the entire amount of Rs. 700 to the accused on the very date he received the money from the Bank. On March 28, 1961 the accused had given a receipt Ex. 1 in favour of the Treasury Sarkar for the said amount, The prosecution case is that the accused Bill clerk did not hand over the Bill amount of Rs. ...
State of Orissa Vs. Bisram Patel
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori159; 1965CriLJ234
S. Barman, J.1. This case arises out of a complaint contained in a report made by the Inspector of Supplies under Section 13(1) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (Central), Act 21 of 1958 for not taking either a permit or a licence as required by the Act The case ended in an order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, Nawapara, District Kalahandi.2. A preliminary point was taken that the report about the offence by the Inspector of Supplies is not valid in law as it was not made by a person duly authorised in this behalf.Section 15 of the Act is this :'No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by the licensing officer or any person duly authorised by the Central Government or the Licensing Officer in this behalf.'3. What are the facts here? The Inspector of Supplies made the report. There is nothing to show that he was authorised to do so in respect of the ...
Banchhanidhi Onkarmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori162
Das, J. 1. In all the four cases, this Court under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 required the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and to refer the following question for the opinion of the Court: 'Whether on the' facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the provisions of Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Indian Incomer-tax Act, 1922 the Income tax Tribunal had power to scale down the rate of interest due to Bai Mani Poddar from nine per cent to six per cent.' 2. The assessment years involved in these cases are 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1952-53, the corresponding previous years being Diwali years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. 3. For all these four years the assessee was a Hindu undivided family with Onkarmal Poddar as the Karta. The assessee carried on various businesses in cloth, yarn etc. and derived income from other sources also. Mani Bai Poddar is the wife of Onkarmal Poddar. On the occasion of her marriage with Onkarmal, she received a sum of Rs. 20,000/...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »