Orissa Court March 1965 Judgments
Dhruba Charan Khandal Vs. Dinabandhu Patri
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori15; 1966CriLJ42
R.K. Das, J.1. This is a complainant's appeal against an order of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Jajpur, acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 500. Indian Penal Code. 2. The complainant is the Sarpanch of Barumdai Gram Punchayet and the accused is the President of Radhamohan Grain Gola Cooperative Society. P. W 1 Khageswar Naik. a sub-assistant registrar of Co-operative Societies. Cuttack Circle, called for a meeting of the aforesaid Grain Gola Co-operative Society on 24-11-1963, and requested the B. D. (.). (P. W. 4) to inform all members by beat of drum to be present at the said meeting. The B. D O. in bis turn asked the complainant to give notice of the meeting as directed by P. W 1. The complainant, P W. 3 accordingly gave notice of the meeting and he himself attended the meeting though he was not a member of the Radhamohan Grain Gola Co-operative Society.3. It is the prosecution case that the meeting commenced at about 2 p.m. on '24-11-1963 in the Barundi Resf Shed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Hara Prasad Panda and anr. Vs. Hiramoni Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori47
S. Barman, J.1. This case arises out of twosuits which were tried together and were disposed of by the same judgment by both thecourts below but two decrees were drawn up.This second appeal is an appeal from a decision in only one of the said two suits. Theappellants herein Haraprasad Panda andJogeswar Panda did not prefer an appealagainst the decree in the other suit which wasagainst them.2. The facts briefly stated are these: One Krupasindhu Panda and Markanda Panda were two brothers. The appellants herein Haraprasad Panda, Jogeswar Panda and three others (Anirudha, Bidyadhar and Sarbeswar) belong to Markanda's branch. Hiramani Devi and Saraswati Devi as widows are the only two surviving members representing Krupasindu's branch of family. It is said that Hiramani's husband Khetramohan during his life time had sold plot No. 447 out of the family property to one Gopal Chandra Chand who in turn sold the same to one Ramesh Chandra Panda a stranger purchaser. The appellants Haraprasad and...
Tag this Judgment!Mango Lohora and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ori214; 1965CriLJ792
ORDERR.K. Das, J. 1. This is an application made by the accused-petitioners for quashing the order of commitment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pan-posh in the district of Sundargarh.2. On the information lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police, Rourkela, a case was instituted alleging that on 21-3-1964 some houses in the Muslim Bustee were destroyed by fire and that some Muslims were killed. After investigation and charge-sheet the petitioners were to be committed to the Court of Sessions for trial under various sections of the Penal. Code. During the committal enquiry, the prosecution did not examine any of the occurrence witnesses whose names found place in the prosecution report submitted under Section 173, Criminal P. C. It appears that though the prosecution took time twice to produce the witnesses, ultimately it expressed its inability to produce any. The learned Magistrate on perusal, of the documents filed along with the prosecution report under Section 173, Criminal P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Haribandhu Satpathy Vs. Chandrasekhar Surendra Singh and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori12
Barman, J. 1. The petitioner Haribandhu Satpathy was a Sarpanch of Mancheswar Gram Panehavet. Athgarh Subdivision, in the district of Cuttack until he was removed on a no-confidence motion passed against him. The petitioner challenges the election of his rival opposite party No. 1 Chandrasekhar Surendra Singh who, in the casual vacancy thus occurred, was elected at a by-election held by the Election Officer on November 29, 1963 after notice dated November 18, 1963 by the Election Officer who fixed the date of the by-election. 2. The voting position at the by-election was this: Total number of voters was 24 including the 2 candidates who were left out. So out of the remaining 22 voters. 8 voted for the petitioner and 14 for rival candidate who was declared elected, 3. The petitioner Haribandhu Satpathy had filed a petition challenging the election of his rival under Rule 24 of the Orissa Gram Punchayet Rules. 1949 before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Athgarh who declared that the election...
Tag this Judgment!Natabar Behera Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-12-1965
Reported in: 1965CriLJ692
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Natabar Behera is a driver in the Public career Truck O. R. C. 1051 belonging to Aska Sugar Factory. On 26-2-1964, he was produced before the Mobile Court who is a judicial Magistrate, 1st Glass, Aska at 5.30 p.m. The charge against him was that the vehicle which he was plying did not carry a valid route permit and the permit which he produced was valid only up to 2-7-1962. The accused was fined Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act on admission, Later on he found that the valid route permit had been kept in the Truck just below the expired route permit. He being new to the vehicle did not know it. On 28-2.64, he reported the matter to the Magistrate who forwarded the record to the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) for necessary action. Subsequently the driver also filed a regular application asking for a reference to the High Court. The route permit which was produced before the Addi...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Bahinipaty and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori35; [1965(10)FLR313]
Barman, J. 1. The main point in this writ petition is whether the petitioners working under Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee as Daffadars, Barkandajes, Ballav Gudias (who prepare Ballav and Kora which are offered to the deities) form an 'industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The dispute between the management of Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri, and the petitioners who claim to be workmen represented by Jagannath Temple Employees Union is over the arrears of salary which the management refused to pay the petitioners. The petitioners' Union raised the matter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for conciliation which ultimately failed. Thereafter in due course the petitioners moved the State Government for referring the dispute for adjudication. The State Government by their Order dated April 14, 1964 decided that there is no case for reference of the dispute for adjudication since, according to the Government, the dispute between the management of Puri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›