Orissa Court May 1965 Judgments
P. Narayan Rao Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-25-1965
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ171Ori
S.K. Ray, J.1. The accused-petitioner ii the manager of the factory named Orissa Timber Trading Company situated in Mal-Godown, Cuttack. He was prosecuted for offences under Sections 85(e) and 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, on the footing that the Orissa Timber Trading Company is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act and that the accused-petitioner being manager is the principal employer as defined under Sub-section (17) of Section 2 of the said Act.2. Paras 5 and 6 of the prosecution report succinctly state the prosecution case against the accused. They are quoted herein below:5. That under Regulation 26 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations 1950, every principal employer is required to submit to the Corporation the contribution cards duly affixed with the contribution stamps along with the return of contribution cards form No. 6 within 42 days of the expiry of the respective contribution period.6. That the contribution cards duly aff...
Tag this Judgment!State Transport Controller Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribu ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori109
Ahmad, C.J. 1. This is an application by the State Transport Controller, Orissa requesting this Court to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records of the Industrial Dispute Case No. 5 of 1963, to set aside and quash the award given therein on 25th November, 1963 by the Industrial Tribunal. Orissa, which was published in the Orissa Gazette dated, 13th December 1963 and whereby the order of dismissal passed on 19th December 1960 against their employee Lakhman Pradhan was held illegal and unjust and he was ordered to be reinstated.2. Lakhman Pradhan was appointed by the management of the Orissa State Transport Service (hereinafter described as the management) on 19th November 1957 as a cleaner purely on a temporary basis (vide Annexure- A to the written statement filed by the second party before the Industrial Tribunal), It was expressly stated in the letter of appointment that 'the services may be terminated at any time without notice.'3. It is said...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Haris Chandra Kar Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori189; 1966CriLJ1042
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. The parties in all these revision! are the same and the question of law that arises is common to all. Accordingly all the applications are disposed of by this one judgment.2. The opposite party has been committed to the court of Sessions for an offence under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. It appears that 18 F. I. Rs. were lodged in respect of 18 separate cases against the opposite party who is an ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Sankar, and all these 18 cases have been clubbed together to six cases out of which these six revisions arise 3. At the trial a number of witnesses have been examined. The prosecution case is that the Gram Panchayat Auditor who audited the accounts of the above stated Gram Panchayat from 10-2-63 to 16 3-1963 noticed some defalcations said to have been committed by the opposite party Harish Chandra and thereafter he filed the aforesaid F. I. Rs. It is said that after the audit was over, the cash book and other documents on the basis of whi...
Tag this Judgment!Parbati Dei Vs. Alupati Dukhishyam Patra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori6
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff (opposite party No. 1) filed a title suit No. 75 of 1963 in the Court of the Munsif. Aska for recovery of arrears of 'rent and possession of the suit house from defendant No 1 (opposite party No. 2) on the allegation that the house was leased out to him on 10-3-1961. Plaintiff's title to the suit house is based on a registered deed of sale dated 10-3-61 by the defendant No. 2 (opposite party No. 3) in his favour Defendant No. 2 is the father of the fourth defendant (petitioner) and husband of the third defendant The first defendant denied relationship of landlord and tenant and pleaded that nominally he executed a rent deed on the pressing request of the plaintiff and that he was never inducted as a tenant. The petitioner and her mother engaged one Advocate and filed a joint written statement drafted on the instructions of the mother. The petitioner is a young lady twenty years old and knew nothing about the case. In the joint written statement filed on ...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Makbul Vs. Sk. Sidik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori41
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Money Suit No. 101 of 1963 was posted for hearing on 20-12-1962. The following order was passed on that day:Both parties pray for time to adduce evidence. .. .. .. .. .. Plaintiff's time petition is rejected for want of merit. Defendant 1's time petition is also rejected. He ought to have been more diligent in taking steps, I do not see any reason why he could not take those steps earlier. Again defendant-1 applied for time. The time petition is rejected. Defendant 1 is set ex parte. Plaintiff files hazira. The suit taken up. P.W. 1 Sk. Siddik is examined. To 22-12-62 for orders.'On 28-12-62 the suit was decreed in full ex-parte against defendants 1 to 6. On 7-1-63 defendant-1 filed an application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree which was registered as Misc. Case 10/62 and dismissed on 11-10-63. An appeal against the trial Court's order was dismissed on 2-5-64. The Civil Revision has been filed against the appellate order.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›