Orissa Court March 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.
A. Viswanadham Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Ori42; 1968CriLJ342
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a motor-truck bearing registration No. M. P. O. 61.2. P. W. 2 is the traffic inspector in the district of Koraput. On 22-5-62 he found the said truck M.P.O. 61, plying in the district without a valid route permit and also without payment of tax for the relevant period, i.e. for the second quarter ending on 30-6-62. On demand, the driver of the vehicle could not also produce the registration certificate, or the fitness certificate or even his own driving license. Thereafter P.W. 2 submitted a prosecution report against the driver as also the owner of the vehicle for offences under Sections 112, 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Section 7 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.3. At the trial, the accused persons denied that the vehicle was plied that day and also stated that there was no such check by P. W. 2 as claimed by him. They also filed two documents, Exts. A and B. One is a certified copy of a receipt dated 15-5-63 gran...
Mst. Puinbasi Majhiani Vs. Shiba Bhue and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori41; 33(1967)CLT13
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. In this reference made by the Registrar the question is whether the court-fee on a memorandum of appeal from an order refusing to grant probate of a will in R. S. 15 of 1963 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir, is payable under Article 11 or Article 17-A of schedule II of the Court Fees Act. The appellant has valued the appeal for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 5,000 but paid court-fee of Rs. 6/- treating it as an appeal against an order under Article 11. The Stamp Reporter pointed out that the appeal is from a decree and the Court fee is Rs. 150/- as payable under Article 17-A and that accordingly the deficit of Rs. 144/- is realisable from the appellant. The appellant contested the stamp report before the Registrar stating that the order appealed against is not a decree and that the court-fee payable is not under Article 17-A.2. Having regard to the position that the matter has assumed some general importance for the reasons stated by the Registrar...
Chakrapani Mukhi and anr. Vs. Dhruba Charan Mukhi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori39; 1967CriLJ395
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. This is a petition by a 1st party in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The parties come from the same family and the dispute relates to some plots in respect of three Khatas in mouza Saheba Nagar in the district of Puri.2. On 16-12-64, the 2nd party filed a petition before the Subdivisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar requesting him to take action under Section 145 Cr. P. C., as there was apprehension of breach of the peace concerning possession of the aforesaid disputed property. Shortly thereafter i.e. on 6-1-65, they also filed O. S. 3 of 1965 in the court of Munsif, Bhubaneswar in respect of the same property. In the said suit, they asked for a declaration of title and for confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession. On 17-2-65, however, the Magistrate in pursuance of the petition of the 2nd party dated 16-12-64 passed a preliminary order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and attached the property. The 2nd party who are the plainti...
Laxman Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ori234; 1966CriLJ1464
Misra, J.1. These two cases were heard together with Cr. Misc. 12/05 and OJC. 58/66 (Shivaji Patnaik v. State of Orissa), OJC. 69/66 (Purnachandra Badajena Panda versus Slate Government of Orissa) and Cr. Misc. 19/66 and OJC 81/66 (D. Bhubanmohan Patnaik v. State of Orissa). Same points of law have been canvassed in all these cases. There is no difference on facts excepting that the order of detention was passed on 14 January, 1966 in the case of the petitioner and Sibaji Patnaik and on the 20th January 1966 in the case of others. Relevant facts and law would be examined in this case and the conclusions reached herein would govern the results of other cases.2. The relevant facts may be narrated in chronological order:Sl. No.DateDESCRIPTION.1.29-12-64The petitioner was detain-ed under Rule 30 (1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by the following order Government of Orissa,Home DepartmentBhubaneswarSpecial Section. Order No.8585/C,the 29th Dec...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›