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.
William Jacks Co. Vs. State of Orissa Represented by Commissioner of S ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori75; 30(1964)CLT553; [1964]15STC855(Orissa)
Narasimham, C. J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution requesting this court for the issue, of an order to the sales tax authorities, directing them to refund certain amounts paid voluntarily by the petitioner by way of sales tax for the two quarters ending 30-6-53 and 30-9-53. The payments were actually made on 20-4-54 and 27.5.54. At the time of payment of the said taxes, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the United Motors Case, reported in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd., AIR 1953 S. C. 252 was the law of the land. There is no dispute that the transactions of sale of the petitioner would come within the expression 'Explanation Sales' used by their Lordships of the Supreme Court themselves as a compendious expression while describing the sales covered by the aforesaid decision. The taxes were therefore lawfully payable at that time. Subsequently, however, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, when they delivered their judgment...
Bholanath Naik and ors. Vs. Krupasindhu Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori215
Barman, J. 1. The point involved in these three miscellaneous appeals filed by decree-holders is limitation. These appeals arise out of certain execution cases filed by 3 decree-holders (plaintiff and legal representatives of defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 6) for recovery of possession of their respective allotments under a final decree made in a partition suit. 2. In 1927 the plaintiff filed a partition suit O. S. No. 35 of 1927 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Berhampur. On March 30, 1929, preliminary decree was passed in the partition suit, which ultimately went to the Privy Council. On April 16, 1936 a receiver was appointed by the Subordinate Judge under an order of the High Court dated March 16, 1936. A pleader of Aska was appointed as receiver. On Aug. 23, 1947 final decree was passed in the partition suit. There was an appeal to the High Court F. A. No. 691 of 1949 which was dismissed by the High Court on November 10, 1955. The receiver was throughout in possession and ...
B. Kurmanaikulu Vs. District Mechanical Engineer, South Eastern Railwa ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori253; (1965)ILLJ181Ori
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a subordinate servant of the South Eastern Railway, challenging the order dated 4-104962 of the District Mechanical Engineer, of the S. E. Rly. at Waltair, dismissing him from railway service,2. In March 1961 the petitioner was working as the Khalasi of the Carriage shed in Cuttack Railway Station. It was alleged that on 18-3-1961 he provided accommodation for one Sri A. R. Ritchie, in the slip coach attached to 382 Down (Puri Howrah Express) by opening the locked door, and then demanded from Sri Ritchie some gratification for the, service thus rendered. Shri Ritchie paid him annas 8. The Vigilance staff who were secretly watching the activities of the petitioner immediately went inside the carriage, took the statement of Shri Ritchie and submitted a report, on, the basis of which regular departmental proceedings were drawn up against him; and he was charged with 'serious misconduct in having demanded and ac...
Sita Dei Vs. Daitary Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori224
G.K. Misra, J.1. Defendant is the appellant against the confirming judgment. Plaintiff's case is that the defendant executed a sale deed (Ex. 3) on 6-4-1951 for consideration. It was presented for registration on 4-3-51. Subsequently the defendant did not turn up before the Sub-registrar for registration. The Sub-Registrar refused to register on 14-9-1951. Plaintiffs filed an' application before the Registrar under Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act which was rejected on 30-4-1953 under Section 76 of the Registratian, Act. The plaintiffs accordingly filed the suit on 14-5-1953. The relief sought in the suit is not merely to get Ex. 3 registered. Further reliefs have been claimed for confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession.2. The defence case is that the defendant is an illiterate lady who fixed her thumb impression and signature on a blank paper on the representation that it was a mortgage bond. She denied execution and passing of considerati...
Dr. Jnanendra Nath Das Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori241; (1965)ILLJ173Ori
Misra, J. 1. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks two reliefs:(i) to issue an appropriate writ to quash the Order of dismissal dated 30-8-1962, and (ii) to direct the State of Orissa to pay the full salary of the petitioner during his period of suspension from 1-6-1950 to 11-3-1954. 2. Facts relevant to the controversy involved in this application may be stated in a narrow compass.The petitioner was the Dt. Health Officer posted at Bolangir on 1-6-50 when he was suspended on charges of misconduct. He was dismissed after departmental enquiry on 12-3-54. In O. J. No. 138 of 1958 the High Court quashed the order of dismissal on 13-4-59 and directed the opposite party to refer the case of the petitioner to Administrative Tribunal under the Disciplinary Proceeding (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951. The petitioner's case was referral to the Administrative Tribunal and he was again suspended with effect from 1-6-60. The Tribuna...
N.N. Soor Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC872(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, J.1. These 5 references relate to five quarters ending 31st March, 1956, to 31st March, 1957, and involve common questions of law. Two questions of law have been referred by the learned Tribunal. Those are--(a) Whether in the circumstances of the case, there has been violation of the principles of natural justice by the learned Assistant Commissioner, the first appellate authority ; and(b) If there has been such violation of natual justice at the first appellate stage, whether in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was competent to dispose of the appeals on a consideration of the materials on record.2. In the reference order, the learned Tribunal has given a clear statement of facts. The material facts are that the petitioner supplied rubbles for construction of spurs at Daleighai. For the aforesaid quarters he furnished no returns alleging that they involved merely payments of labour charges and that he had no title to the rubbles. His contention was accepted in th...
Nalha Balabantra Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-08-1964
Reported in: 30(1964)CLT468; 1966CriLJ493
B.K. Das, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.2. According to the prosecution the disputed land was purchased by Chandra Samantra (P. W. 11) and one Uchhab Samantarsingh on 10-5-60 under sale deed Ext. 3) from one Ananda Chandra Panda, (P. W. 16) and was under the personal cultivation of the purchasers in the year I960. But in the following year they leased out these lands to some of the villagers of Bengi-tangi. On the date of occurrence that is 22-5-1982 at about 3 p. m. the Bhag chasis went upon the disputed land to sow paddy seeds when the accused persons who come from different villages came there armed with lathis etc- and created disturbance. As a result of the marpit that followed some of the persons on the side of the Bhag-chasis sustained injuries and one Benu Naik met his death. Immediately after the occurrence, P. W. 1 lodged the F. I. R, (Ext. 1) and after investigation 19 accused persons inclu...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. the Cuttack Cycle Supply and Co.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori4
S. Barman, J.1. Defendant No. 1 Union of India as owner of South Eastern Railway is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff against the Railway and also against the consignor defendant 2, Calcutta Cycle Supply Co. of certain goods from Calcutta for a decree for Rs. 2198.10 nP. for alleged short delivery. The plaintiffs case is that on April 12, 1953 seven cases of Cycta parts were booked from Shalimar for delivery at Cuttack. The Railway receipt Ext A described the goods as:'Seven cases said to contain cycle parts.'When the goods were unloaded, one out of the seven cases was found broken; the remaining six were sound cases intact with no defect. It was discovered at the time of unloading that the broken case contained cycle parts and there was practically no shortage. In the sound cases, some foreign materials like bricks intermingled with cycle parts were found. This will appear from the unloading register Ext B. The plaintiff filed the suit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›