Orissa Court March 1967 Judgments
Bolani Ores Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Orissa Represented by the Colle ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori1
Das, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the machineries in their possession, and as described in Schedule A of the plaint, are not liable for registration under Section 22 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter described as the Act') and as such cannot be taxed under Section 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Taxation Act') as they do not come within the ambit of the definition of 'Motor Vehicles' given in Section 2 (18) of the said Act. As both the appeals raise common questions of law they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.First Appeal No. 44 of 1963.The machineries in respect of which the plaintiff seeks a declaration as aforesaid are:(1) 2 Cu Yd. Lorain Shovels...two Nos.(2)Ingersoll-Rand Drill Master...two Nos.(3)Caterpiller D-8 Bull-dozers...two Nos.(4)Le Tourneau Rockers...two Nos.(5)Euclid Dumpers...five Nos.(6)Motor Grader...one No.(7...
Tag this Judgment!Shaik Aminul Islam and anr. Vs. Bidyadhar Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori7; 33(1967)CLT751
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Petitioners and opposite party No. 3 are the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 claims to be the proprietor of the Orissa Kohinoor Press and is publishing two almanacs known as Asali Pathanisamanta Nutan Panjika and Orissa Kohinoor Press Panjika The case of the plaintiffs is that these almanacs are printed and published on the basis of calculations furnished by Ganaks on annual basis and that the almanacs sell mainly upon the goodwill and the name of the calculator. Harihar Khadiratna (petitioner No. 2) and Dayanidhi Khadiratna (opposite party No. 21 had been jointly furnishing such calculations to plaintiff No. 1. In 1964 a dispute arose between them and the calculations for this year 1965-66 for the two almanacs of plaintiff No. 1 were supplied by petitioner No. 2 alone. The defendants (opposite parties 1 and 2) published two Panjikas adopting the names as Asali Samanata Panjika and Orissa Jatiya Panjika Ba Orissa Kohinoor Panjika. It was further averred by the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Amara Dei Vs. Arjuna Dhal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori62; 33(1967)CLT732
G.K. Misra, J.1. Bhobani and Sapani were brothers. Plaintiff is the son of Bhobani. Sapani died 30 years ago leaving behind his widowed daughter Ajodhya, who was married to Dibakar. Both of them are dead and used to reside in the house of Sapani after his death. Amari (defendant) is the foster daughter of Ajodhya. The disputed property comprises of four plots -- plot 1621 --. 16 acre, plot 1626 --. 64 acre, plot 1618 --. 10 acre and plot 1617 -- .06 acre. Sapani executed a registered deed of gift (Ex. C) in favour of Ajodhya on 9-7-26 in respect of undivided half share in plots 1618, 1621 and 1626. He executed a registered deed of sale (Ex. D) in favour of Dibakar on 25-5-32 in respect of undivided half of plot 1617. Sapani predeceased Ajodhya and on his death, his interest in plot 1617 devolved upon Ajodhya. Thus Ajodhya became the owner in possession of the undivided half of the disputed lands. She executed a registered deed of gift (Ex. B) on 20-6-59 in favour of the defendant in re...
Tag this Judgment!Suryamani Tarai and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Ori189; 33(1967)CLT576; 1967CriLJ1552
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The three petitioners with another Rama Tarai are under trial under Sections 384/34 and 447/34, Indian Penal Code, before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jajpur, in a sessions case. Prosecution case is that accused Rama Tarai, father-in-law of the deceased, lodged an F. I. R. (Ex. 1) on 15-11-65 in Dharmashala Police Station that his daughter-in-law committed suicide. An unnatural death ease was registered and inquired into by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, R. N. Mohapatra (P.W. 6). He held inquest and sent the dead body for post mortem examination He came to the conclusion that it was not a case of suicide and so he drew up F. I. R. (Ex. 9) on his own information that the petitioners committed various offences.In course of trial P. W. 2 (a child witness) and P. W. 5 (mother of P W. 2) were examined as eye-witnesses before P W 6 was examined on 20-1-67. In course of cross-examination of P. W 6 it transpired that he had recorded the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Das Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori148; 33(1967)CLT1120; (1967)IILLJ567Ori; (1970)ILLJ571Ori
Barman, J.1. The Petitioner -- until lately Rural Welfare Inspector in the Tribal and Rural Welfare Department, Government of Orissa -- challenges in this writ petition the order of the Government of Orissa dated November 6, 1964 by which he was discharged from service on the ground of alleged misappropriation by him of public funds under items discussed in the said order agreeing with the enquiring officer's (Additional District Magistrate Keonjhar) report in the departmental proceedings against the petitioner.2. The main grounds on which the said Government order is challenged are, in substance, these: Unfair discrimination in that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to be assisted by a lawyer in the proceedings before the Enquiring Officer. Besides, the petitioner was also not given any opportunity to effectively cross-examine the witnesses in that copies of the previous statements by the witnesses before the Vigilance Inspector were not supplied to the petitioner in spite of...
Tag this Judgment!Jayadev Padhan and ors. Vs. Managobinda Sathua
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Ori196
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The suit is for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction Both the plaintiff and the defendants claim tenancy rights under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. The Estate Abolition Officer recognised plaintiff's title. Against that order an appeal is pending under Section 9 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Defendants made an application before the learned Subordinate Judge for stay of the suit under Sections 10 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, alleging that the suit should not be decided when the claims of the partieshave not yet been finally decided by the Estate Abolition Authorities. The learned Subordinate Judge disemissed this application holding thatthe Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide matters pending before the Estate Abolition Authorities and question of conflict of decisions does not arise. Mr. Rath does not press the civil revision on the basis of Section 10 C. P. C.2. The only point canvassed by him is that under ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar Narayan Naik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Ori203
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed Title Suit No. 44 of 1966 in the court of the Munsif, Balasore, against the State of Orissa for a declaration that he did not encroach upon the disputed land and the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar is not ex* ecutable against him. He also prayed for permanent injunction. His case was that he with one Gurbachan Singh had a canteen on the roadside land of Orissa Trunk Road opposite to the Civil Court building In 1962. there was a proposal for construction of a Bus Stand Plaintiff was asked to vacate the site on which the old canteen stood and with the verbal permission of Sri K.C. Singh Deo. who was then the Collector as well as the Chairman of the Balasore Municipality, he shifted to the suit site and constructed a canteen The Collector of Balasore filed written statement challenging the aforesaid averments in the plaint. Plaintiff summoned Sri K.C. Singh Deo, Collector of Balasore, to be examined as a witness on his ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›