Orissa Court March 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.
Sadhucharan Patri Vs. Sudarshan Patri and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori2
R.K. Das, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the confirming decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, arising out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.2. The suit land originally belonged to the defendant. One Jadumani Patri obtained a decree against the defendant in money suit No. 126 of 1930 and in execution of the said decree put the suit land to auction, and the plaintiff purchased it in the Court sale for a sum of Rs. 25/- on 16-9-42 and the said sale was confirmed on 16-2-43 and the plaintiff obtained the requisite sale-certificate from the Court. The plaintiffs case is that when he want-ed to take delivery of possession, the defendant told him not to put him to further unnecessary expenses and he would deliver possession of the suit-land amicably without intervention of the Court. In the long run, however, the defendant did not deliver possession of the suit land on various pretexts and accordingly the plaintiff filed the present su...
Adhikari Narayanamma Vs. Adhikari Thabitinaidu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori212
R.K. Das, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below, arising out of a suit for declaration of title, and recovery of possession and for mesne profits.2. Plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. Their marriage on 6-3-1952 is admitted. Plaintiffs case is that at the time of the marriage, her husband the defendant gifted the suit-property to her out of love and affection and later on executed the deed of gift (Ext. 1) which was duly registered and delivered to the plaintiff and she was in enjoyment of the property until 1956 when the defendant deserted her and unauthorisedly occupied the suit land. Hence the plaintiffs suit for the reliefs aforesaid.3. The defendant denied the gift, though he admitted the execution and registration of the deed of gift. His case, however, is that before the marriage of the plaintiff, her father demanded five Tolas of gold from the defendant who agreed to give the same within twenty days of the marriage. As the de...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa Vs. Rupsa Rice Mill.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR328(Orissa)
NARASIMHAM C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Income-tax Tribunal, Patna, referring the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on January 31,1958, in respect of the assessment year 1946-47 was bad in law ?'The material facts found by the Tribunal are as follows : The assessment proceedings were completed on October 31,1950. Thereupon, a notice under section 28(3) of the Act was issued to the assessee to show cause why penalty may not be levied for the concealment of some income.'A fresh notice was again issued to him on April 1,1955, and the matter was posted for hearing on April 13,1955. It was again adjourned to April 25,1955, on which date the Income-tax Officer merely directed that orders will be passed on receipts of the records. Nothing was done for nearly t...
Raimon Ho and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori6; 30(1964)CLT460; 1965CriLJ55
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. During the hearing of this revision petition the question arose about the legality and propriety of the order D/- 14-5-1962 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Karanjia in Complaint Case No. 84 of 1961. Mr S.C. Mohapatra who appeared for the accused persons in that case accepted notice on behalf of those persons, calling upon them to show cause why the order dated 14-5-1962 may not be set aside and he was permitted to argue this point both on facts and on law.2. The material facts connected with this revision petition are as follows: One Donga Rensa Ho (P.W. 1) filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate on 4-9-61 against the two accused persons (petitioners before me) alleging that they caused him injuries. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate on the same day, after examining the complainant on- solemn affirmation, took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons under Section 323 I.P.C. This was registered as complaint case No. ...
Kanduri Misra Vs. Sahadeb Kunda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-25-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ295
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a revision petition against an interlocutory order dated 1-5-1963 passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Khurda in a case under Sees, 426, 379 and 447 I. P. C. pending in his file.2. On 12-3-1963 the learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused persons and some other persons and then adjourned the case for cross-examination to 1-5-1903, writing in the order sheet.Complainant take steps to produce witnesses for cross-examination (after charge) on 1-5-63.As early as 28-1-1963 the prosecution witnesses had been examined in chief. Then on 1-5-1963 the complainant being unable to bring his witnesses asked. for time. The learned Magistrate refused to grant him time and expunged the evidence of those wit-nesses, namely Jagannath Mohapatra, Narendranath Mohanty, Satrughna Singh and Golakh Sethi. His efforts to dispose of the case were however not successful because when the complainant was being cross-examined he fell down due to hysterical fits...
Mahadeb Prasad Gupta and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori260; 1964CriLJ694; [1964(9)FLR229]
R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a revision against the judgment of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Bhadrak, convicting the petitioners under Section 31(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for contravention of the provisions of Section 25F(b) of that Act and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-each; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.2. The case against the petitioners was started on the basis of a prosecution report submitted against them by the Assistant Labour Commissioner of Orissa (P. W. 1) to the effect that they being the employers of five workmen in Popsing Rice Mill, Charampa retrenched them without giving them the retrenchment benefits provided in Section 25F(b) of the Act. The complaint was actually filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and it was based on a detailed enquiry made by the District Labour Officer namely N. Sahoo (P. W. 6). Some of the employees who were so retrenched without being given retrenchment benefits were also examined...
Sajjan Das and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori251; 1964CriLJ567
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. The two petitioners who are father and son respectively were tried in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Balasore for an offence under Section 304, I. P. C. The learned Judge, however convicted the father (Sajjan Das) under Section 325, I. P. C. and the son (petitioner Krushna Das) under Section 323, I. P. C. and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment and fine. Their appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.2. The two petitioners are residents of village Chardia P. S., Baunsada in Balasore district. They were on terms if enmity with P.W, 1 Raghu Majhi and his nephew Nanda Majhi (deceased). The quarrel started 4 years ago when they were both competing for the purchase of a piece of bari land belonging to one Bouri Das. The land was eventually purchased by P.W. 1 Raghu Majhi. On 12-9-1951 there was a quarrel between P.W.' l on the one hand and the two petitioners on the other because the petitioners suspected that Raghu had throw...
Daitari Das Vs. Kulamani Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori21; 30(1964)CLT500; 1965CriLJ191
R.K. Das, J.1. This is a complainant's appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate, 1st Class, Cuttack. 2. Daitari Das and Apart Das are cousins being residents of Kokolapur. Accused Abdul Hamid also belongs to the same village. The other three accused Kulamani, Birabhadra and Bansidhar come from the adjoining village Kanapur. It is the prosecution case that on 19-4-1958 at about 2-30 A.M. the accused persons attempted to commit robbery in the house of Aparti (P. W, 6). On the following morning Daitari lodged information (Ext. A) at Jagatsingpur Police Station in which he named only Abdul Hamid as one of the accused stating that 'some others' also participated in the occurrence. After investigation the Police submitted final report on 10-9-1958 stating that the case was 'intentionally false'. Thereafter the complainant filed a regular complaint on 10-1-59 against the four accused persons on the very same allegations and the accused persons were summoned to stand their t...
Mulia Maharana Vs. Narayan Patra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori246
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiff is the petitioner. On 9-3-1962 issues were settled and the suit was adjourned for trial to 234-1962. On that day the plaintiff and defendant 1 filed haziras; as the Court was engaged in another part-heard suit, this suit was adjourned to 9-7-1962 for trial. On that day defendant 1 was ready and filed hazira; but the plaintiff applied for time. The prayer for adjournment was rejected and the parties were directed to get ready at once. Later, on the same day, the following order was passed:'The plaintiff neither responds to calls nor takes any steps. The defendant 1 is ready. Hence the suit is dismissed for plaintiffs default in presence of defendant 1.'On 11-7-1962 the plaintiff filed an application wider Order 9, Rule 9, C. P.C. for setting aside the order dated 9-7-1962. He alleged therein that one of his material witnesses was suffering from fever and the other missed the bus, and so he could not get ready on 9-7-1962. The learned Munsif disbelieved t...
Bishnu Putel Vs. Bajra Putel
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori250
S. Barman, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of the plaintiff's title to and confirmation of possession or alternatively recovery of possession of the suit land, and damages. The suit related to 40 decimals out of total 93 decimals in plot No. 731.2. The plaintiff's case is this: The plaintiff, defendant and others belonged to one joint famaily. There was a separation. The suit plot is said to have been noted in plaintiff's possession in 1936 Settlement and the plaintiff has been paying rent. The note in the record-of-rights Ext. 4 is 'Jami O. Faldakhal Bishnu Putel.' In 1954 the plaintiff obtained a separate Parcha with regard to plot 731 and other plots, and the plaintiff is paying the rent separately -- a rent receipt being Ext. 6 series. The defendant is said to have cut away trees from the suit land and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. Thereupon on March 17, 1959 the plaintiff filed this sui...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »