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.
Sachidananda Patnaik and anr. Vs. G.P. and Co.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori269
G.K. Misra, J.1. Defendants are the appellants. Defendant 2 is the brother and authorised agent of defendant 1 Plaintiff's case is that the disputed land belongs to defendant 1. She entered into an agreement Ex. 1 with the plaintiff on 7th October 1956 to sell the disputed land for Rs. 10,000/-. Rs. 1000/- was paid as earnest money on the date of the execution of Ex. 1. There was a stipulation that the balance consideration would be paid by 30th October 1956 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Balasore when the sale would be completed and that the vendor shall, on completion of the sale, deliver to the purchaser an abstract of her title to the property. Possession was also to be delivered on that day. Further terms of agreement are not relevant and need not be mentioned. On the 24th October 1956 the plaintiff was served with a notice (Ex. 2) from the Collector of Balasore prohibiting it from enclosing or possessing the disputed land as it was the subject-matter of a proceeding under Se...
Somnath Sahu Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Ori26; [1968(16)FLR428]
Misra, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India asking for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 11th March, 1960 terminating the services of the petitioner.Shorn of all details, the facts may be stated in a narrow compass. The petitioner was working as a Welfare Officer under opposite party No. 4, the Indian Aluminium Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) having its factory at Hirakud in the State of Orissa. For appreciation of facts, the relevant portions of the latter terminating the services of the petitioner are quoted hereunder. :'In a conference held in Writer's Office on the afternoon of March 10th, 1960 in which our Personnel manager Mr. P.K. Krisha Pillai, Production Manager Mr. S.S. Narayan. Personnel Superintendent Mr. S. Misra, yourself and the writer (V.S. Sachdev, Asst. Works Manager) were presnt, you have stated : 1. That you have no confidence in the fair dealings of the Company.2. That you would be ...
Kalandi Behera and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori166; 30(1964)CLT446; 1965CriLJ383
Misra, J. 1. 28 persons were put on trial. 20 persons have been acquitted. Appellants 1 to 8 are respectively accused Nos. 2, 5, 20, 19, 21, 23, 22 and 28. All the appellants have been convicted under Section 147 and Section 379, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 147, I. P. C. Appellants 4, 5 and 7 have further been convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. No separate sentence has been passed under Sections 323 and 379, I. P. C. 2. The dispute relates to 9 acres of land situate in village Narendrapur, The lands belong to deity Mahimamani of which the Raja of Kanika is the trustee. The prosecution case is that deceased Balaram Das was a bhag tenant of these lands for over 20 years before 1959. He fell into arrears of rent and surrendered the lands. In the year 1959, complainant Gani Parida (P. W. 1) was inducted as a bhag tenant and he cultivated for three years 1959, 1960 and 1961. There is an accute party faction in the area. The part...
State of Orissa Vs. Chakradhar Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori262; 1964CriLJ696
Misra, J. 1. All the 57 accused persons are the respondents. They were prosecuted under Sections 447, 342, 148, 302/149, 395/149, 323/149 and 307/149, I. P. C. and have been acquitted. All the accused were notcharged under all the sections.2. The learned Sessions Judge has well summarised the case for the prosecution and the defence. The facts may be stated in brief. Thedispute centres round about nine acres of landsituate in village Narendrapur. The lands belongto deity Mahimamani under the marfatdari ofRaja of Kanika. Balaram Das of the neighbouring village Karanjamal was admittedly in possession as Bhag tenant for a period over 20 years before 1959. The prosecution case is that Balaram also continued in possession in 1959, 1960 and1961 and performed all the agricultural operationsin the year 1961. The occurrence took place atabout moon on 28-11-1961. For about 6 or 7 daysprior to the date of occurrence Balaram had started reaping paddy from those lands. On 26-11-1961 Accused-1 (Chak...
Sisir Kumar De Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-11-1964
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ667Ori
R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Government of Orissa fixing the pension for the petitioner under the new pension scheme as provided in Rule 8 fa) of the Liberalized Pension Rules published in No. 13795F, dated 19 September 1951.2. The petitioner Joined Government service in 1921 and retired in the Orissa Subordinate Educational Service as headmaster of Government High School, Koraput, with effect from 7 December 1954. When the new liberalized pension rules were brought into force, he was given an option, by Rule 8 thereof, to come under the new scheme of pensions. This option was to be exercised by all old entrants. Three choices were open to them: firstly they may agree to come under the new liberalized pension rules; secondly they may express their willingness to continue under the old pension rules as a whole; and thirdly they may exercise their option of continuing to be governed by the old pension rules subject to death-cum-retire...
Ajit Kumar Roy Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori255
Narasimham, C. J.1. In this writ application a 'workman' of the Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela has challenged the validity of the order passed by the Government of Orissa in the Labour Department dated 4-10-1962 declining to refer to the, Labour Court for adjudication a dispute between him and his employer namely the Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela, regarding the, termination of his services.2. The impugned order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act and reads as follows:'Government of Orissa. Labour Department._________________Office Memorandum. No. 11-26/52 10746 Lab. Bhubaneswar -- dated 4-10-1962. Sub: Industrial dispute between the management ofHindusthan Steel Limited and its workman Shri A. K.Roy. Refr (1) Letter No. 360 (2) L. 0. dated 15-2-1961 fromthe District Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer,Rourkela. (2) Letter No. 6059 dated 20-3-1961 from Labour Commissioner, Orissa. On consideration of ...
Rajkishore Mohanty and ors. Vs. Niranjan Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori226; 1964CriLJ563
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Addl. DistrictMagistrate, of Cuttack recommending the setting aside ofa final order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. passed by ShriP. K. Das, Magistrate 1st Class, Cuttack, in a criminal miscellaneous case (No. 523 of 1961).2. The proceedings were initiated on 28-10-1951 and the affidavits of both the parties were filed on several succeeding dates, and on 284-1962 the learned Magistrate wrote in the order-sheet as follows:'Parties present. 1st party filed affidavits ,as per list. No further, acceptance of documents on affidavits. Put up on 5-5-1962 for hearing. The first party has to pay the cost already ordered and unless he pays the cost on next date he has to pay more costs.'Notwithstanding this clear order he appears to have accepted the affidavit of one Kunda Dei which was filed before him on 21-6-1962 on behalf of the 1st party. The order-sheet of that date does not show that the Magistrate applied his mind to the filing of the ...
Udaya Dalai and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-06-1964
Reported in: 30(1964)CLT275; 1965CriLJ831
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. The two petitioners were convicted under Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955 and sentenced to uudergo rigorous imprisonment for four months each, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chatrapur and their appeal was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.2. The prosecution case was that on 18-2-1981 at about 1 a.m. the A. S. I. of Police, Rambha with some of his staff, detected a bullock cart coming on the road accompanied by the 2 petitioners. The bullock cart was immediately seized and railway materials consisting of iron sleepers, tie bars etc. were found in the cart. They were then sent up for trial for the aforesaid offence and convicted.3. So far as the seizure of the materials from the bullock carts is concerned, there is ample evidence on the side of the prosecution which has been believed by the two Courts, The evidence of A. S. I. of Police is amply corroborated by that of the village Munsif Gadadhar P. W. 1 and the Ta...
Kailash Chandra Mohanto and ors. Vs. Rajkishore Mohanto and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori108
S. Barman, J.1. Defendants 1 to 9 are the appellants. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to plot No. 94 in Khata No. 22 or alternatively to plot No. 99 appertaining to the same khata and for recovery of possession. 2. The plaintiffs' case is this: Suit plots Nos. 94 and 99 belonged to the plaintiffs and defendant No. 9. Defendant No. 9 filed a title suit being title suit No. 49/76 of 1949 against the plaintiffs for partition of lands including suit plots Nos. 94 and 99. In the final decree passed on compromise between the parties in the said partition suit, plot No. 94 was allotted to the share of defendant No. 9 and plot No. 99 was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. After the allotment both parties possessed the lands which fell to their respective shares. It is said that subsequently there was an exchange of these plots between the parties, namely that the plaintiffs got suit plot No. 94 from defendant No. 9 in ex...
Dinabandhu Behera Vs. Bisuni Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori1
S. Barman, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The plaintiff is the father of defendants 1 and 2, Defendant 1 is the younger son and defendant No. 2 is the elder son. The plaintiff's case is that he and his two sons defendants 1 and 2 formed a joint Hindu family owning a house and a homestead as the only immovable property and the family had business in brass and bell-metal articles. In 1941 there was dispute in the family. Thereupon there was partition of the homestead and the business assets into three equal shares among the plaintiff and his two sons. The plaintiff's case is that within a few days after the partition there was reunion between the plaintiff and his younger son defendant No. 1 and they carried on their business jointly as before. Due to differences with his younger son defendant 1 after his marriage, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition. Defendant 3 was impleaded in the suit as defendant 1, transferred some of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »