Orissa Court June 1965 Judgments
Radhaballav Math Endowment Vs. Fakir Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ori221
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. On 3-6-60, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 300/- from the late Mahanta Radha Chandra Das of Radha Ballav Muth, Puri on the basis of a pronote Ext. 1. The Mahanta died on 10-3-63. From 21-3-63, the Math is being managed by the Endowment Department through an Executive Officer, appointed by the Commissioner of Endowments under Section 52 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The then Executive Officer, Sri Baidyanath Sarangi took charge of all the properties of the Math including the papers relating to money lending business. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 272/- inclusive of interest. The defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note and advance of the loan, but contested the suit on the pleas that the loan had been advanced from the personal funds of the Mahanta and not from the funds of the Math and that he paid Ks. 320/- to the Mahanta in Falgoon, 1963 and that Krishna Ch. Das who was the heir of the late Mahanta is entitled to file the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Golakbehari Kanungo Vs. Siu Bai and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori58
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. On the 22nd June 1963, the petitioner (defdt. No. 1) did not appear in court and was set ex parte. The suit was fixed for hearing to 18-7-1963. On this date, the petitioner also did not take any steps. Both the defendants were absent and the suit was decreed ex parte. On 17-8-1963, he filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree. The Court passed the following order on that very date: 'The petitioner filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. Register and issue notice to opposite parties fixing 2-9-1963 for return and objection. Requisites within 3 days.' On 2-9-1963, the Court passed an order to the effect: 'Notice not issued as the requisites not filed. Requisites filed today. Opp. party is absent on call. The case is dismissed for petitioner's default in taking steps.'On 1-10-1963, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 151 C.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Case No. 240 of 1963. The application was dism...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector of Puri Municipality Vs. K.C. Anjanayulu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori144; 1966CriLJ784
R.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Puri acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' ).2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated thus :The respondent has his residence in Matimandapsahi and shop known as 'Jagannath Ghruta Bhandar' in Dolmandap Sahi in the town of Puri. He carries on the business of preparing ghee and selling the same at his residence and shop. On 26-1-61 the Food & Health Inspector P. W. 4 got some information that the respondent-accused was selling adulterated ghee for human consumption. Thereafter P. W. 4 along with P. W. 3 and some others raided the house of the accused and seized 141 tins of ghee of different varieties. Out of the said tins, nine tins were marked as S.G.S. red label ghee, 21 tins were marked as S.G.S green label ghee, 56 tins of 'prepared ghee, 49 ti...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector, Puri Municipality Vs. Arjundas Agarawalla
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ333
R.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Munsif Magistrate, 1st Class. Puri, acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution case out of which this appeal arises may briefly be stated as follows:2. The accused respondent has a godown in Luxmi Bazar in Puri Town. On 21-2-1963 the Food Inspector, P. W. 1, took samples of some Ahar Dal from the godown of the accused and later on sent the same to the Public Analyst for necessary examination and seized 10 1/2 bags of Dal under Ext. 2. The public analyst after examination found the Dal to have been adulterated. Accordingly prosecution was launched against the respondent and he was put to trial before the Magistrate aforesaid.3. The accused admitted the seizure of the Ahar Dal from his godown, but took up the plea that the Dai was not meant for human consumption but was intended for cattle feeding as indicated by 'Gokha' mark on the bag itself.4....
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Madhusudhan Ram
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori188; 1966CriLJ1041
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. The Government appeal isagainst an order of acquittal of the accusedrespondent who is a grocer shop-keeper and abusinessman of Karanjia on the charge of having exhibited adulterated 'Guntur' ghee forsale and for having sold the same to the Karanjia Food Inspector and thus having committed an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. TheCriminal reference arises out of a recommendation by the learned Sessions Judge for retrialof the case in the circumstances thereinafterstated. The defence of the accused is completedenial.2. The circumstances in which the accused was charged for alleged adulteration of the Gunthur Ghee are these : On January 20, 1963 the Food and Sanitary Inspector P.W. 1 inspected the accused's shop and collected three samples Including one sample of Gunthur Ghee which he had exhibited for sale. All the samples were taken in three bottles and sealed in the accused's presence. One of the samples under seal was delive...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›