Orissa Court April 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.
Rasi Dei Vs. Bikal Maharana and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori20
S. Barman, J. 1. Defendant No. 3 in a partition suit is the appellant from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge Cuttack, whereby he appointed an outsider as receiver in respect of the suit agricultural lands.2. In May, 1963, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree for partition of their respective shares. The total area of the suit lands is said to be 5.656 acres. The defendants are said to be members of a joint Hindu family. The 11 plaintiffs are each purchaser for a specific portion of property from different members of the defdts' family. The total acquisition of the plaintiffs by purchase is said to be 3 acres. On the plaintiffs' application for receiver the learned Subordinate Judge appointed one Sri Dibakar Jena of Souri Gram Punchayet as receiver. Hence this Misc. appeal filed by defdt No. 3.3. The learned Subordinate Judge did not give any reasons for his appointing the receiver. His order, which is cryptic, is this:'26. 4-1-64. Parties file haziras. Heard lawyers at le...
Hindusthan Steel Ltd. Vs. Workers of Refractories Department, Hindusth ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori131; [1965(10)FLR54]; (1965)ILLJ253Ori
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Hindusthan Steel Ltd., Rourkela (hereinafter referred to as the Employer) challenging the validity of the award dated the 5th June 1963 given by the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, in an Industrial dispute between the Employer and certain classes of its workmen. The workmen raised disputes mainly as regards Increase in the wages of certain classes of (sic) and six such disputes were referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The first dispute dealt with the grade of pay to be fixed for Tearing Out Gangmen of the Refractories Department, but as this dispute was amicably settled by the representatives of the Employer and its workmen, it need not be considered. The remaining five disputes referred to the Tribunal for adjudication are as follows :-(i) Whether the Khalasis of the Refractories Department of Hindusthan Steel Ltd. should be designated as 'semi-skilled workmen' and, if so, whet...
Mst. Nilabati Padhiani and ors. Vs. Pirabati Padhiani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori258
S. Barman, J.1. Defendants are the appellants. On November 23, 1960, the plaintiffs fifed the suit for redemption and possession of the suit land under an oral mortgage of July 9, 1939. The defence in the suit js that plaintiff No. 1 as Karta of the plaintiffs family and as guardian of the minor plaintiffs settled the suit lands with deft. No. 1 for Rs. 13/- and 4 Khandis of paddy as consideration for the settlement and executed a rayati patta on July 9, 1939 and put defendant No. 1 in possession of the same. The defendant also pleaded that they perfected title by adverse possession and the suit is barred by limitation.2. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the finding that the suit was barred by limitation and that the defendants acquired title by adverse possession. The trial Court also found that the suit land was settled with defendant No. 1 as aforesaid. In appeal, the learned lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the suit in favo...
Bhagabat Patnaik and ors. Vs. Madhusudhan Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori11
S. Barman, J.1. The point involved in this appeal is limitation. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the Courts below for vacating possession of the suit house, for Rs. 288/- as arrears at rent, mesne profits and other incidental reliefs. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by both the courts below as barred by limitation under Article 139 of the Indian Limitation Act.2. The facts, so far as material for purposes of deciding the question of limitation are, these: The suit house belonged to Panda family of the defendants. In 1921 at a certain court auction sale one Narayana Gouda purchased the suit house and obtained delivery of possession. On August 15, 1921 father of the plaintiffs purchased the suit house from Narayan Gouda by a registered sale deed. Thereafter the suit house was leased out by the plaintiffs to the defendants' family for 3 years. In 1930 there was a lease by the plaintiffs for a further period of 3 years. The last lease given to the...
Dwarika Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC144(Orissa)
R.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the appellate order of the Collector of Puri, maintaining the order of the Certificate Officer in a certificate proceeding pending against the petitioner at Puri. The penalty was levied on the petitioner by the Sales Tax Authorities under Section 13 (5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and a certificate case was filed against him for recovery of the penalty as arrear of land revenue. The certificate-debtor (petitioner) objected to the continuance of the proceeding urging that the original assessment order of the Sales Tax Authority was set aside on appeal by the Sales Tax Tribunal and the proceedings were remanded for reassessment. Hence, it was urged on behalf of the certificate debtor that once the original assessment order was set aside by the Tribunal the levy of penalty which, again, was...
Ramchandra Nahaka and ors. Vs. Bharat Rana
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Ori38
R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the Judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur, dismissing an appeal filed against the judgment of the Munsif of Berhampur, in an execution case, allowing the objection of the judgment debtor to the attachment of his residential house in view of the provisions of Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment debtor claimed to be an 'agriculturist and hence he sought for exemption under the said clauses of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The sole point of law taken by Mr. Misra for the appellant is that the objection of the judgment debtor under Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 60, C. P. C. is barred by res judicata. A scrutiny of the records of Execution Case No. (E.P 7 of 1960) shows that on 15-3-62 the judgment debtor filed a petition describing it as one under Section 47 read with Section 151, C. P. C. and objecting to the attachment and sale of the property on the ground that he was an agriculturi...
Rukmini Bai Rathor Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori274; [1964]54ITR430(Orissa)
Narasimham, C.J. 1. These two references were made by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and the question for the opinion of this Court has been formulated as follows:'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the status of the assessee has been rightly determined as that of an 'individual' in the assessment to Wealth tax -- for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-1959.'2. The following genealogical tree of the assessee's family will be useful. Kooverji Karson Rathor -(Wife Mani Bai-died in 1946) ______________________________|_________________________ | | | | | Jaisingh (died on Vijay Surya Hansraj Ramesh 14.8.49) Wife Ruk Singh mani Bai Rathor (Assessee) | Hemlate Rathor (minor unmarried daughter)The parties are Hindus governed by the Mitakshara.3. On 18-10-44 the assessee's husband effected partition with his father and was allotted a share of the assets belonging to the family. Thereafter, Jaisingh managed the business of his own family...
Tulsiram Sanganaria and anr. Vs. Smt. Anni Bai and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori9
Das, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of this Court in F. A. Nos. 82, 83 and 84 of 1958 disposed of in one judgment on 22-12-61.2. The appeals arose out of three money-suits filed by three different plaintiffs against a common set of defendants, but the, present appellants (defendants 12 and 13J were the only contesting defendants. The common case of the plaintiffs was that the two joint families of Suraj-mal and Manilal constituted a partnership firm known as 'Surajmal Manilal'; Pannalal one of the partners of the firm executed the suit hand-notes on behalf of the above firm in 1949 and all the members of the firm of Surajmai Manilal including the defendants were liable to pay the same.3. The case of the contesting defendants was that they were separated from Manilal long before the execution of the suit pronotes and were not partners of the firm, Surajmal Manilal, and in any case they were not benefited by the loan and were not li...
Ratnakar Sahu Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Ori48
Barman, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Union of India representing Eastern Railway and South Eastern Railway for Rs. 4560 as compensation for non-delivery of certain portion of the consignment.2. The only point in this appeal is limitation. The facts so far as material for the purpose of deciding the point are these: On June 21, 1954 the plff. hooked ten packages including one old and used iron safe and dismantled parts of machine from Ranaghat on Eastern Railway to Haridaspur on South Eastern Railway as per railway receipts Ext, 5. On July 13, 1954, 4 packages arrived at Haridaspur. Six packages did not arrive. It was found mat 4 packages were open and some iron scraps were put inside. On September 17, 1954 the plaintiff's brother is said to have informed the plaintiff that he learnt at the station that only 4 packages had reached the destination on July 13, 1954; that it was not known when the remaining six package...
William Jacks and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori190; [1965]16STC693(Orissa)
Narasimham, C.J.1. These seven references were made to this Court, under Section 24 (3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (in pursuance of the directions given by this Court) by the member, Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal.2. The questions referred to this Court are as follows:--(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Press Note dated 2-11-55 and 31-12-1956 could be deemed to have been issued under Section 7 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and, as such, had full statutory force behind them and whether even otherwise the press notes were not binding on the State Government. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessments for the relevant quarters being initiated and completed within the interim, period of vacuum between the press notes D/- 2-11-1955-and 31-12-1956 were not absolutely illegal and unwarranted in view of the mandatory character of the said press notes ? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the above press notes, and...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »