Orissa Court May 1966 Judgments
Nilamani Dhal Vs. Radhamohan Jiw Thakur and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori6
R.K. Das, J. 1. Defendant 1 is the appellant against the reversing judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. The appeal arises out of a suit for declaration that the suit-land belongs to the family deity, Radhamohan Jiew and that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 are the joint Marfatdars of the said deity.2. The genealogy of the family has been given in the appellate judgment and it is unnecessary to reproduce the same here. It would be sufficient for the purpose of this appeal to state that Achutananda Dhal had four sons. Ananda, Gopi, Purusottam and Brundaban. Balakrushna is the son of Ananda. He took Anukula in adoption from Gopi's line and some years after such adoption, Tarakanta his natural son, was born to him Plaintiffs 1, 2 & 3 are the sons of Tarakanta and defendant 1 the appellant in this appeal is the son of Anukula. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 come from Gopi's branch, defendant 6 represents the branch of Purusotom and defendants 6 and 7 that of Brundaban.3. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Gouda Vs. Kalu Houda and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ori228
G.K. Misra, J.1. Mr. Khan raised two contentions-(i) The Registered Award (Ex. 1) dated 10-7-1958 is unenforceable under Section 23 of the Contract Act as the arbitration agreement intended to stifle criminal prosecution; and (ii) The Award was not made a rule of the Court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and, as such, it cannot he relied upon for enforcing rights arising thereunder. Many issues had been raised in the trial Court. Most of them have been abandoned. As no other contention has been urged in second appeal, facts relevant to the aforesaid two contentions need only be mentioned.2. It is now the admitted case of the parties that Sulla Gouda adopted defendant Gobinda Gouda. He had executed a registered adoption deed (Ex. A) dated 12-4-1955 in evidence of the adoption. Later on there were differences between them. On 27-5-1958 they executed an arbitration agreement (Ex. B) conferring authority on Sarpanch Krushna Chandra Das t...
Tag this Judgment!Adikando Satpathy Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori31; 1967CriLJ388
R.K. Das, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years.2. P. W. 1 Japa Kissore Mohanty is a junior Sub Inspector of Police attached to Jagatsingpur Police Station in the District of Cuttack. Sometime in January 1964 he had gone to investigate a case lodged ill the instance of Kartik Satpathy, in case No. 1 of 1964, accnmanicd by some of his constables. While investigating that case, it is said, that at the instance of the present appellant some other accused persons, including Radhu Mallik and Babaji Mallik assaulted P. W. 1 and the constables. Accordingly P W 1 started a case against the appellant and ten others (Jagatsinghpur Police Case No. 4/64). The accused persons in this case filed an application under Section 494, Cr P. C., before the district Magistrate. Cuttack, for withdrawal of the said case.The Additional District Magistrate who considered this petition (Cr. Misc. Case No. 23/64-Ext. 2), on ...
Tag this Judgment!Krushna Chandra Balua and anr. Vs. Mt. Daimati Kisani
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ori239
G.K. Misra, J.1. The appeal is not pressed but the cross appeal has been argued at length. The facts relevant to the cross appeal are as follows :The appellant Krushna Chandra Balua is admittedly husband of Mst. Daimati Kissani, the respondent. She filed a suit for maintenance which ultimately ended in a compromise on 6-5-1960 in T. S. No. 48 of 1959 in the Court of the Munsif, Sambalpur. Under the compromise the respondent was entitled to a future maintenance of Rs. 30 p.m., Rs. 20 for herself and Rs. 10 for her minor son if and when the appellant would fail to maintain them. As the appellant failed to maintain the respondent and her minor son, she started execution of the compromise decree. The husband raised an objection under Section 47, C. P. C. that out of the maintenance of Rs. 30 p.m., Rs. 10 cannot be granted in favour of the son as he was not a party to the compromise decree. The learned executing Court overruled this objection. In appeal however, the learned Subordinate Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Barada Kanta Misra Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-04-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ663Ori
K. Ahmad, C.J.1. This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate direction, order or writ as provided therein. The petitioner is a member of the Judicial Branch of the Orissa Civil Service. The petition is directed against the Government Order issued under Notification No. 1068, dated 15 January 1963, reverting the petitioner from the post of temporary Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) to his substantive rank of Subordinate Judge. The grievance made by the petitioner is that this order of reversion was passed by way of punishment. As such it amounted to his reduction in rank as contemplated in Article 311 of the Constitution of India, Therefore, the procedure as laid down therein not having been admittedly followed and the petitioner not having been given any opportunity of showing cause against that order, it is said to be void, illegal and not binding in law.2. The persons impleaded as members of the opposite party to the petition are two:(1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›