Orissa Court January 1967 Judgments
Daitari Dalai Vs. Jagannath Srichandan Rai
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-29-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori65
Das, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant against an affirming judgment of the third Additional Subordinate Judge, Cut-tack, in a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant sold the disputed property to him on 15-10-54, by sale-deed (Ext. 2) for a consideration of Rs. 800 on condition that if the defendant pays back the consideration money before 14-6-56, the plaintiff would re-transfer the property to him. The defendant did not repay the money. On the other hand the plaintiff invested substantial amount in improving the land and remained in possession of the property, but the defendant forcibly dispossessed him on 21-6-59. Hence the suit by the plaintiff.3. The case of the defendant is that the transaction was not a sale out and out, but was a mere mortgage with the condition that the plaintiff would enjoy the usufruct of the property towards the discharge of the debt and that the period of four years for which the plaintiff h...
Tag this Judgment!Registrar of Companies Vs. Orissa China Clay Refinery Company Private ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Ori185
Barman, J.1. This is a complaint filed by the official liquidator against Shri Jagannath DAS ex-director-in-charge of the China Clay Refinery Company (Private) Limited (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as the company) to take cognizance of the offence under Sub-sections (5) and (5A) of Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 and impose necessary punishment on the said accused ex-director-in-charge as required under the law, in the circumstances hereinafter stated.2. On January 21, 1966, there was an order for winding up of the company under the provisions of the Act and the official liquidator was directed to take charge of properties and effects of the said company as liquidator.3. Under Section 454(3) of the Act, the accused ex-director-in-charge of the company was to submit a statement of affairs of the company in the prescribed form verified by an affidavit within twenty-one days from the relevant date, namely, the date of winding up order or within such extended time not ex...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Misra and ors. Vs. Kulamani Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Ori200; 33(1967)CLT617
Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs' case is that they were the co-sharer Makadams of village Raiguri Besudeipur The suit property was the Nijjot land belonging to entire body of Makadams. Rajan Bhoi and Gaji Bhoi, who are brothers, were in enjoyment of the disputed land on Jagir The condition was that they would be liable to eviction on non-performance of services. The suit land was recorded in the name of Rajan and Gaji in the Nijjot Khata No. 23. Both of them died without leaving any heirs soon after the last settlement. The Makadams took Khas possession of the property. In T. S. No. 42 of 1931 in the court of the Subordinate Judge. Cuttack the disputed land was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs, who are in possession of the same all through Defendant No. 10 is the son of Bula Behera, He described himself as the son's son of Gaji Bhoi and executed a registered sale deed Ex. B on 24-4-69 in favour of defendants 1 to 9 though he had no right, title and interest. The transferees threatened to...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, Puri Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramaniklal Joshi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Ori169; 34(1968)CLT231
Barman, J.1. This is a suit filed by the Puri Bank Ltd. in liquidation against the defendants for Rs. 732.70 Ps. including interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum on a mutual, open, current account with the bank. The transactions relate to the period from April 10, 1941, to July 26, 1944. As appears from the schedule of the claim as stated in the plaint the principal amount due from the defendants is Rs. 271.87 Ps. The suit was filed on February 20, 1964.2. The defendants, while denying altogether the liability of the alleged claim, pleaded that instead of any amount being payable by the defendants to the plaintiff bank there was a credit balance of Rs. 42-6-3 on account of deposit made on June 15, 1943, of a hundi for a sum of Rs. 260-4-0. The defendants' point is that if credit is given for the said deposit the said sum of Rs. 42-6-3 will be payable by the bank to the defendants. The defendants also deny the correctness of the accounts on which the bank relied in support of th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagiram Singh Vs. Superintendent of Police Cum Taxing Authority and a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori25; 33(1967)CLT645
Ahmad, C.J.1. The petitioner is a licensee under the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930, and by virtue of the license runs a truck bearing No. ORS 3059. The controversy in this case relates to the tax payable for the 4th quarter 1962, that is to say, the quarter from October to December, 1962. It is not disputed that under Section 12-A Explanation (1) the due date of payment of the tax for that quarter was 1st of October, 1962, and that the tax was paid on 16th of October, 1962, The view taken by the Motor Vehicle Department was that the petitioner. In making the payment of the tax on 16th October, 1962, was late by one day and therefore, as provided in Section 12-A, a penalty of Rs. 1000 has been imposed upon him, for which necessary proceeding has already been started under the Public Demands Recovery Act.The grievance made by the petitioner is that the payment made on 16th of October 1962 was within time as contemplated by Section 12-A of the Bihar and Orissa Motor V...
Tag this Judgment!Keshab Chandra Rana Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Ori201
Ahmad, C.J. 1. The sole question that falls for consideration in this case is one of illegality said to have been committed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, in dealing with the law of limitation, in the House Rent Control Appeal No. 25 of 1966 This appeal arose out of an order passed on 14-2-1966 in the House Rent Control Case No. 10 of 1964 The period of limitation provided in Section 12 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act 1958 for such an appeal is fifteen days 'from the date on which the order is communicated' to the party aggrieved thereunder In the present case the finding given by the appellate court is that though the order under appeal was delivered on 14-2-1966, it was communicated to the petitioner (who had lost it in the Court of the House Rent Controller) on 18-2-1966. Therefore, according to the appellate court, the petitioner was entitled to prefer the appeal within fifteen days from 18-2-1966.Further, as provided in Section 12 read with Section 29 of the L...
Tag this Judgment!Limai Charan Panigrahi and anr. Vs. M. Ram Chandra Rao and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Ori177; 33(1967)CLT721
Barman, J. 1. The petitioners in these two writ petitions--two bus owners of Paralakhemedi in the district of Ganjam challenge the orders dated May 24, 1965 and January 10, 1968 of the Regional Transport Authority, Ganjam, granting permanent route permit to M. Ram Chandra Rao, who is opposite party No. 1 in both the writ petitions, for stage carriage on a certain specified route subject to the conditions and on the timings as mentioned in the said orders; the legality of the said orders is questioned by the petitioners as contrary to principles of natural justice, void and in excess of jurisdiction by reason of non-compliance with Rule 55 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 read with Section 47(3) and Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter referred to at the Act). The materials fact and circumstances in which the point arose are as stated hereunder. 2. Limai Charan Panigrahi petitioner in O. J. C. No. 176 of 1966 and B. Venkayya petitioner in O. J. C...
Tag this Judgment!Shaik Farid Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-1967
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1423
S. Barman, J.1. The point involved in this case is regarding the legality of an order dated April 13, 1966 passed by the Government of Orissa, Home Department, for arrest and detention in Puri Jail of the petitioner Shaik Farid, a Pakistani national, purported to be under Sections 3 and 4(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (81 of 1946) read with the notification of delegation by the Govern, ment of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, No, 1/45/63 1.1 Ntt. dated the 31st December, 1964. The material facts and the circumstances in which the legality of the Orissa State Govern, ment order is challenged before this Court are as hereinafter stated.2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Kodalia, P.S. Mulahat, District Khulna in East Pakistan and is a Pakistani national. He is stated to have migrated to India in the year 1955 and since then has been living in Orissa at Village Soran, P.S. Tangi, District Puri.3. On January 6, 1966 the petitioner was arrested under an order made by the O...
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Malik Vs. Rasananda Patnaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori18a
ORDERK. Ahmad, C.J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 427 1 P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo R. I. for a period of four months. The dispute in this case relates to plot No. 1290 in village Talpada. The plot in the survey record-of-rights has been recorded in the name of one Anirudha Naik and others. The complainant is admittedly one of the heirs of Anirudha Naik. His claim is that the land had been under his cultivation all along and that in the year 1962 it had been cultivated and sown by him. But despite that on 9-8-62 at about 12 noon the petitioner along with some others came and forcibly uprooted the seedlings sown therein. Hence the prosecution.The plea taken in defence was that the petitioner was a bhag chasi of one Suka who was the admitted daughter of Harekrushna Naik, one of the heirs of Anirudha Naik, and it was claimed that as Suka was one of the persons entitled to the land, his possession over file same as a bhagchasi wa...
Tag this Judgment!Amulya Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa (Represented by the Collector)
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Ori116; 33(1967)CLT684; (1968)ILLJ64Ori
Misra, J. 1. Late Padmacharan Patnaik, a literate constable, was undergoing A. S. I. training IB the Police Training College at Angul On 29-11-59 he with other trainees and staff proceeded to Dhenkanal Jail on duty in a police van (ORD 426) belonging to the State Government. The van was being driven by driver Sayad Yakub AM, who was an employee of the State (defendant). On its way the van dashed against a tree on the road side. Padmacharan sustained injuries and died. Plaintiff is the widow of late Padmacharan. She claimed damages of Rs. 20,000/- on account of the loss caused by the death of her husband as a result of the accident occasioned by rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the defendant. At the time of his death, late Padmacharan was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 60/-. He was 27 years old, was maintaining a very good health and was normally expected to live upto the 60th year with con-sequential promotions due in the police service. The facts leading to the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »