Orissa Court June 1967 Judgments
Pitabas Podhan Vs. Krushna Podhan and 3 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori232; 1968CriLJ1629
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. Opposite Parties 2 and 4 are the sons of Opposite Party 1. The petitioner (member first party) as plaintiff succeededin a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in S. A. No. 052/64 which was dismissed in his favour on 11 -8-66. In pursuance of the decree, delivery of possession was effected on 2-10-66. Apprehending disturbance in possession the petitioner made an application before the Magistrate that the opposite parties should be restrained from interfering with his possession of the land under Section 144, Cr. P.C. On 16-11-66 an ex parte prohibitory order was passed. On 19-12-66 the learned Magistrate converted the proceeding under Section 144 into one under Section 145. Cr. P.C. The criminal revision has been filed against the propriety, of this order. 2. The order of the learned Magistrate is indefensible. The matter is concluded by a series of decisions of this Court, one of which is reported in ILR (1964) Cut 182 = (AIR 1964 Ori 204), Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Judhistir Natia and anr. Vs. Mani Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Ori197; 34(1968)CLT126
ORDERS. Barman, C.J.1. This is defendants' petition, challenging an order of the learned District Judge, Cuttack, dated August 2, 1966 by which he allowed the unsuccessful plaintiffs-appellants' application to appeal as a pauper. The only point urged on behalf of the defendants petitioners is that the learned District Judge did not apply his mind to the question whether the decree appealed from is 'contrary to law' as required by Order 44, Rule 1(2) Civil Procedure Code. Order 44, Rule 1 (2) Civil Procedure Code is this.'The appellate court, after fixing a day for hearing the applicant or his pleader and hearing him accordingly if he appears on that day and upon a perusal of the application and of the judgment and the decree appealed from shall reject the application unless it sees reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law. or is otherwise erroneous or unjust.'2. This matter arose out of Title Suit No. 114 of 1963 filed by the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Bupdeo Santholia Vs. Cuttack Municipality
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ori12; 33(1967)CLT1145; 1968CriLJ73
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. Thakurlal Satholia (since deceased) was convicted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to a fine of Rs 300. As the appeal was filed by the son of the deceased, the appellate Court directed that he would not undergo any imprisonment in default of payment of fine, but the fine would be realised according to law. 2. On 28-2-63 P. W. 1, the Food Inspector of Cuttack Municipality, inspected the grocery shop of the accused in Buxi Bazar within the municipal area of Cuttack city, He purchased a small quantity of Arhar dal suspecting it to be adulterated. A sample of the Arhar dal purchased was seized in presence of two witnesses -- Vigilance Inspector (P. W. 2) and the Sanitary Inspector (P. W. 3). The sample was divided into 3 parts and sealed in three empty bottles one of which was handed over to the accused. Out of the two bottles taken by P. W. 1, one was sent to the Public Analyst...
Tag this Judgment!Niroj Kumar Sen and anr. Vs. Inspector Under the Orissa Shops and Comm ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1967
Reported in: 33(1967)CLT858; (1967)IILLJ417Ori
G.K. Misra, J.1. Petitioners have been convicted under Rule 29 of the Orissa Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days each.2. It is the common case that the registration certificate of the petitioners' establishment was valid till 31 December 1964. An application for renewal of the registration certificate was filed on 4 November 1964. By a letter dated 17 June 1965 the inspector intimated the petitioners that their registration certificate had been duly renewed for the year 1965. The petitioners were convicted for not having renewed their registration certificate in time.3. The main defence of the petitioners was that Rule 4 of the rules providing for an application for renewal of registration is ultra vires the Act and contravention of such rule could entail no punishment and that when a renewed registration certificate was Issued as per let...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›