Orissa Court January 1968 Judgments
Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. Shankar Chit Fund
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori128; 34(1968)CLT373
ORDERS. Barman, C.J. 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. a claimant in respect of a motor truck which had been attached before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code is the petitioner herein. Civil Revision No. 86 of 1965 arises out of an order dated December 12, 1964 passed in M.J.C. No. 23 of 1964 arising out of Money Suit No. 144 of 1963 in the court of Munsif, Berhampur, by which the trial court released the attached truck claimed by the petitioner Sundaram Finance Ltd. subject to the condition that the claimant either deposits the suit amount in cash or furnishes property security of the suit amount by a certain date. A similar order was also passed by the learned Munsif for release of the truck in question on the same terms in M. J. C. No. 32 of 1964 arising out of Money Suit No. 145 of 1963 out of which the other Civil Revision No. 84 of 1965 arises. The said two civil revisions have been heard together. The case of the petitioner claimant Sundaram Finance Ltd. is stated as f...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamsundar Sahu Vs. Saroj Kumar Ghose
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-1968
Reported in: 34(1968)CLT319; 1968CriLJ846
S. Barman, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal of a charge under Section 426/448, Indian Penal Code. In view of the order of remand in this case, I express no opinion on the merits. The circumstances in which this case has to be sent back to the Magistrate are shortly stated, as follows.2. The order sheet shows that the case was taken up for hearing for the first time on October 28, 1964 and it was adjourned from time to time, until September 20, 1965 when the Magistrate on that date made an order directing the complainant to produce his witnesses on October 14t 1965. The order as passed on that date is this:25. 20.9.66. Complainant present. Accused is absent and his lawyer files a petition for time. To 14.10.65, Complainant should produce his witnesses on 14.10.65. Accused as before.Sd. A.C. Das.3. Thereafter, on October 14.1965 the data to which hearing was adjourned the complainant did not appear in spite of repeated calls in the early hours of the morning at 11.3...
Tag this Judgment!Ghasiram Majhi Vs. Omkar Singh
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori99; 34(1968)CLT328
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The original application under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), was filed on 7-4-1967. An amnedment of the petition was allowed on 7-7-1967. On 16-8-1967 a consolidated petition incorporating the amendment was filed. The facts stated hereunder are with reference to this consolidated petition.2. Ghasiram Majhi (petitioner) and Omkar Singh (respondent) were the only two candidates who contested the Assembly Seat of the Orissa Legislative Assembly from the Newapara Assembly Constituency during the last general election held in February, 1967. 20-1-67 was the last date for filing nominations 21-1-67 was the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations. 21-2-67 was the date of poll. The results of the election were declared on 22-2-67. The petitioner polled 9829 votes while the respondent polled 10506 votes. The respondent was declared to have returned to the Orissa Legislative Assembly by a margin of 677 ...
Tag this Judgment!Manakarani Hazra and ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh Jaggi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori418
G.K. Misra, J. 1. Deceased Jaharilal was the owner of a residential house at Mangiabag bearing Holding No. 103 in Ward No. 22 of the Cuttack Municipality. The house at present bearing Holding No. 120. He died on 16th of September, 1963 leaving behind the petitioners as his sole heirs. Jaharilal had let out the said premises to Mahindra Singh Jaggi (Opp. 1) on a rental of Rs. 70 per month with effect from 16-8-1952 on the basis of a written agreement. The case of the petitioners as narrated in the writ application runs thus: Opposite party No. 1, deliberately did not pay the rent of the premises from the third month of the tenancy. On the other hand, he filed an application before the House Rent Controller in House Rent Control Act Case No. 11 of 1953 for fixation of fair rent. The Controller determined the rent at Rs. 33 per month. In appeal, it was raised to Rs. 60 per month by an order dated 24-1-1955. On 7th of November 1952, O.P. 1 removed the wall in between the two bed rooms of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›