Orissa Court January 1966 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.
Daitari Padhan and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori17; 1967CriLJ231
ORDERR.K. Das, J. 1. The Petitioners arc some of the members of the 2nd party in a proceeding under Section 107, Cri. P. C. On 20-12-63 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Burla submitted a report for drawing up a proceeding under Section 107, Cri. P C. against the petitioners and three others, the case against them being that they forcibly entered into the Bari of Rahas Jal (1st party), damaged his fence and threatened to assault him. As breach of the peace was apprehended he requested the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate a proceeding under Section 107, Cri. P. C. against the petitioners.2. Originally, there were five members of the 2nd party and all of them were bound down by the trial Court. The appellate Court, however, discharged three of them and made the order absolute against the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to execute a bond for Rs. 500 with one surety for the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year.3. The petitioners filed written statement denying the ...
Smt. Gajendra Kumari Devi Vs. Guru Gadaba
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ori198
G.K. Misra, J.1. In Money Suit No. 40 of 1963 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jeypore, plaintiff obtained a decree on 10-8-68 for Rs. 975/ with interest towards arrears of cost and land-cess When the decree was put in execution, defendant filed an objection Under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, that the decree was not executable as it was passed by a court having no inherent jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit. The objection was upheld by the Courts below. Against the appellate order, this miscellaneous appeal has been filed It may be noted that the plaintiff had previously filed another suit in the O. T. R. Court for the same claim which was dismissed as being barred by limitation.2. Before the learned District Judge it was not disputed that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the suit was for recovery of arrears of rent and cess and that the O. T. R. Court had once dismissed this very claim.3. Section...
Ankil Behera and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori52; 1967CriLJ570
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. The four petitioners and three others were prosecuted under Section 32 of the Police Act and under Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1932. On the petition of the accused persons, they wore tried Jointly. The trial court convicted all the accused persons under both the charges and sentenced the petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act but passed no separate sentence under Section 32. Three of the accused persons were released on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act.2. The petitioners are said to be the members of the Communist Party at Baripada in the Dist. of Mayurbhanj. A notification under Section 30(2) of the Police Act was promulgated and was in force in the town of Baripada for a period of three months from 15th August to 15th November 1964. As required under the said notification, a person desiring to take out a procession shall have to obtain a...
Satyakumar Kundu and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ori211; 1966CriLJ1299
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. The positioners have been convicted under Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1932 (XXIII of 1932) and each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo R. I. for two months.2. The petitioners are said to be members of Sanjucta Socialist Party. The party gave a mandate to observe Hartal on 25-9-64 throughout India as a protest against the rising prices The prosecution case is that on that day the petitioners approached P. W. 1 Dinabandhu Ghosh and requested him to close his grocery shop at Bahalada Bazar P. W. 1 having refused to do so the petitioner Satyakumar dragged out from his shop some tin pots containing some grocery articles. When P. W. 1 got up from his sitting place inside the shop, both the petitioners pushed him inside and forcibly shut the shop door. P. W. 1 sent for Police An A. S. I. and a constable arrived at the spot and arrested the petitioners. Then a prosecution report was submitted against the petitioners under Secti...
Prahlad Pursty Vs. Sheokh Abdul Rahman
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ori232
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. After a chequered career the suit had been fixed to 26-3-1965 for hearing. Order passed on that date was to the effect:Plaintiff files a petition for time to adjourn the suit on the ground pf illness. Defendant also files a petition to adjourn the suit. The time petitions are rejected as the grounds are baseless. Parties to come ready at once.Later both parties absent on call. Hence the suit is dismissed for default without costs. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 9, Rule 4, C. P. C. It was registered as Misc. Case No. 102 of 1965. On 27-4-1965 the petitioner (plaintiff) filed haziras and the opposite party (defendant) filed an objection. Petitioner and the advocate were present. The opposite party wanted to take part in the proceeding. On the objection of the plaintiff, defendant was not allowed to take part. The Misc. case was allowed and the suit was restored to file. Against this order, the Civil Revision has been filed.2. Order 9, Rule 3, C. P. C. la...
Harihar Das and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: 33(1967)CLT414; 1968CriLJ564
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. Each of the petitioners has been convicted under Section 143 and 447 Indian Penal Code, and Section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1982 and sentenced to under, go simple imprisonment for one month on each count. The sentances to run concurrently. They have also been convicted under Section 32 of the Police Act, but no separate sentence has been awarded.2. The petitioners are said to be the members of the Communist Party at Baripada in the district of Mayurbhanj. A Notification trader Section 30(2) of the Police Act, (hereinafter stated as the Act) was promulgated and was in force in the town of Baripada for a period of three months from 15th August to 15th November 1964. As required under the said notification, a person desiring to take out a procession shall have to obtain a licence from the appropriate authority. It is the case of the prosecution that Bam Chandra Das, a member of the Communist Party at Baripada made an application and obtained a lice...
Kuntala Bewa Vs. Sadhu Charan Mohanti and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ori166
Misra, J.1. The disputed land comprising of an area of 7.89 acres admittedly belonged to Kuntala (Judgment-debtor-petitioner). In execution of a decree for rent of Rs. 79.59 paise. it was put to sale on 10-4-58 at the instance of Mahanta Srinivas Ramanuja (decree-holder-opposite party No. 2) Sadhucharan Mohanti (auction-purchaser opp. party No. 1) purchased the property for Rs. 150. The value of the property in dispute in the sale proclamation was given at Rs. 100. On 8-7-58 the petitioner tiled an application under Section 228 (2). Orissa Tenancy Act, for setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. There was an allegation that the applicant had sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. The petitioner deposited the amount recoverable from her in execution of the decree.The Rent Execution Officer recorded the following findings :(i) The notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, wa...
Satrughna Sabata and anr. Vs. Sridhari Sabata and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ori203
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiff's are the petitioners The suit was for recovery of possession and for subsequent mesne profits and for recovery of future mesne profits till the delivery of the suit land Shorn of irrelevant details, the relevant facts are The suit was dismissed by the trial Court The lower appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs' suil with cost The exact decretal order is to the effect 'plaintiff's suit stands decreed with costs'. The second appeals filed against the appellate decree were dismissed. On the basis of the decree obtained, plaintiffs filed an application under Order 20 Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure for determination of mesne profits from the date of the suit till 22-1-57 when they obtained delivery of possession A counter was filed by the defendants alleging, amongst many other grounds that the relief of mesne profits claimed in the plaint was not expressly granted by the decree and shall be deemed to have be...
Narasingha Panda Vs. N. Narasimha Murty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ori194
S. Barman, J.1. This appeal filed by the plaintiff arises out of a suit filed by plaintiff as transferee of a pronote for Rs 1,000 dated March 14, 1959 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 4 who in turn is said to have sold the pronote to the plaintiff under a separate registered sale-deed dated December 12, 1960. Defendants 2 and 3 are said to be members of the family of defendant 1. The plaintiff in his suit claimed a decree against defendants 1, 2 and 3 as members of a joint family. The only point which was urged on behalf of defendant No. 2 who alone contested the suit is that the plaintiff is not a holder in due course in respect of the suit promissory note and therefore the suit by him is not maintainable Both the Courts below accepted this contention of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.2. In this second appeal Mr. S. Mohanty appearing for the plaintiff-appellant submits that assuming that the plaintiff ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›