Orissa Court April 1965 Judgments
Hadi Kirsani Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori21; 1966CriLJ45
Misra, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C and sentenced to imprisonment for life- He is the eldest son of the deceased and used to slay with him. In the evening of 5-5-63. the deceased was preparing tobacco. The appellant wanted a little of it Not only the deceased refused to give a portion but he gave him a kick by way of admonition Appellant thereafter went to the house of his uncle (P.W 1). He by then possessed a bow, two arrows and a dart. Henarrated the story to P. W. 1 as to how and why he was assaulted by his father. A tittle later, the deceased came towards them and asked the son to come back home saying that he would not assault him further. At this point of time the appellant shot the father with an arrow which pierced his left fore-arm and the right belly. Hardly had he gone a few steps back he fell down. P. W. 1 came to his help and pulled out the arrow. The deceased made a statement before P. Ws. 1 to 3 as to how he was shot by his son. He was re...
Tag this Judgment!Jammula Srirangam Bros. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC69(Orissa)
S. Barman, J.1. These five writ petitions along with others involving the same question of law were all originally heard together and were disposed of in one judgment by a Division Bench of this Court dated 13th March, 1959. The State of Orissa filed appeals before the Supreme Court including Civil Appeals Nos. 84 to 88 of 1963 which relate to the said five writ petitions now before us. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court in the said appeals and remanded the writ petitions to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law in the circumstances hereinafter stated.2. The petitioners are merchants of Berhampur town carrying on the business of selling gold and silver ornaments. They claim exemption from payment of sales tax in respect of the sales of some gold ornaments on the ground that they were manufacturers of those ornaments and that while selling the same they were charging separately for the value of gold and the cost of manufacture. The exemption was claimed...
Tag this Judgment!M. Subba Rao Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori27; 1966CriLJ48
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 in default to undergo R. I. for three months.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26-6-1962 a motor lorry ORK No. 204 when being checked at the Police Station Korapul, was found carrying 36 bags of rice weighing 108 maunds. On enquiry it was learnt that sixty maunds out of the same belonged to the petitioner and the rest forty-eight mauads to one Basudeb Misra. Thereafter the petitioner was prosecuted for having purchased and transported more than fifty maunds of rice in a single calendar day in contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1959, thus committing an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.3. The plea of the petitioner was that only 16 bags weighing 48 maunds belonged to him and the balance four bags weighing 12 maunds belonged to one Bangarayya and though he produced cash-mem...
Tag this Judgment!Kunj Behari Das Vs. Chanchala Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori24
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs (opp. parties) filed 0. S. 271 of 1959 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri, for recovery of Rs. 23,000. An ex parte decree was passed against the defendant (petitioner) on 4-2-1963. He filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code on 1-3-1963 in M. J. C. 43/63 which was dismissed for default on 22-6-1968. Against that dismissal order, he filed M. A. No. 71/1963 in the High Court. On 1-10-1963 this miscellaneous appeal was permitted to be withdrawn. The order of the High Court was to the following effect:Mr. Misra wants to withdraw this appeal saying that he will move the Subordinate Judge. He is permitted to withdraw. We do not express any opinion as to the maintainability of such an application before the Subordinate Judge.On 4-11-1963 petitioner filed an application under Section 151, C. P. C. before the Subordinate Judge, Puri, in M. J. C. 283/63 for setting aside the order dated 22-6-1963 dismissing M. J. C. 43/63 for def...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Sekhar Misra Vs. Gobinda Chandra Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori18
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff's suit is for recovery of Rs. 402, both principal and interest inclusive on the allegation that on 23-6-1901 the defendant took a loan of Rs. 300 in cash on executing a promissory note by way of security for realisation of the loan and in evidence thereof and stipulated therein to pay hack the loan and to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on demand. In para 6 of the plaint the cause of action was mentioned to he borrowing of money on the basis of the promissory note The defence need not be stated as it is not relevant for the purpose of this revision.On 1-9-1964 plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order ft, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. Certain portions of the plaint were prayed to be deleted and to be substituted by the averments that there was an oral agreement that the principal and interest at 12 per cent per annum would be paid on demand. The object of the amendment was to clearly state that the plaint i...
Tag this Judgment!Radhacharan Das Babaji Vs. Bhima Patra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori1
Ahmad, C.J.1. This miscellaneous appeal in view of some importance of the point of law involved in it, has been under the order dated the 25th April, 1964 directed to be placed before a Division Bench. It is therefore now before us for hearing.2. The appeal is by the plaintiff' and it arises out of a suit for declaration that the respondent-defendant is not a 'tenant' of the lands in suit and for recovery of possession thereof. It is no more in dispute that the respondent-defendant is not an 'occupancy raiyat' in respect of the suit lands; but his claim is that he is in any case at least a statutory tenant within the meaning of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act 1948 (Orissa Act III of 1948). As such he pleads that he is protected from eviction under the provisions of the aforesaid Orissa Tenants Protection Act and the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955 (Orissa Act V of 1955); and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.3. Originally, the trial court relying on the princip...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Sahu Vs. State and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori9; 1966CriLJ40
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. The petitioner has been prosecuted for an offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code on the basis of a report filed by the A. S. I., Parjang Police Station. The case against him being that in course of the investigation of a case under Section 380, I. P. C., he obstructed the A. S. 1.--to conduct a search and behaved in a threatening manner On a complaint filed by the A. S. I. the accused was summoned for an offence under Section 186 and the case was posted to 9-1-1965 The Sub Inspector who filed the complaint was however absent on that day The accused filed a petition contending that the summons issued to him did not accompany a copy of the petition of complaint as required under Section 204(1B) that this being a summons case the complainant should under Section 244 be examined first before any other witness present in court are examined and that the complainant himself being absent on that day and the Court not having dispensed with his personal appearance, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagabat GossaIn Marfatdar Durga Charan Bhuyan Vs. Gopi Bhoi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori84
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 15/- towards damages on the allegation that the defendants cut away 32 palm-leaves from the palm trees belonging and in the possession of the plaintiff dishonestly and forcibly without the consent of the plaintiff. The suit was filed in the Court of the S.C.C. Judge, Cuttack. Defendants filed written statement alleging that the palm leaves belong to them and that they did not remove the palm leaves on the date of occurrence. (22-4-1963). The learned S.C.C. Judge dismissed the suit and the Civil Revision has been filed against his judgment.2. The suit was dismissed on the following findings which may be quoted in the words of the learned S.C.C. Judge:(i) In the absence of any satisfactory proof from the side of the plaintiff I do not believe the cutting arid removal of palm leaves as alleged by the plaintiff. (ii) The learned Advocate for the defdts. further urged that this case is not maintainable as a S.C.C. suit. It should have be...
Tag this Judgment!Taramani Dasi Vs. Gopal Charan Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-1965
Reported in: 1965CriLJ690
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. This petition is directed against an appellate order made under Section 476B by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack, directing a complaint to be filed against the petitioner under Section 193 Indian Penal Code.2. The petitioner Taramam Dasi filed a com-plaint against the opposite party and some others under Sections 379/109, I, P. C., alleging that they plucked some cocoanuts from her trees. Her case was that she is the legally married wife of one Lalitmohan Rai the recorded owner of the disputed land on which the said cocoanut trees stood. After the death of her husband, she was in possession of the said property, but the accused persons plucked the cocoanuts from the trees standing thereon. On a complaint being filed the accused persons were summoned to stand a trial.3. The plea of the accused persons was that the land in question was in possession of Sibendra Kumar Rai, an adopted son of Lalitmohan and the complainant was a mere concubine of Lalitmohan and was ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Represented by General Manager, South Eastern Rly ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori79
G.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs suit is for refund of Rs. 17,200/- towards security deposit. Before filing of the written statement, defendant filed an application for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that under the agreement, all disputes and differences between the parties are to be decided by arbitration. The application was dismissed on 10-4-1963. The miscellaneous appeal has been filed against this order.2. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application on two grounds:(i) Rule 63 of the Schedule of rates made by the South Eastern Railway, the defendant cannot insist on any arbitration, and it is only a choice of the plaintiff to go arbitration on certain contingencies; and(ii) There is no independent agreement between the parties to go to arbitration in case of dispute or difference.3. At the outset Mr. Misra conceded that the judgment of the Subordinate Judge cannot be supported on the grounds given ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »