Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1970CriLJ931
G.K. Misra, J.1. Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 324, I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for one month.2. One Rathi Mahakud had four sons - Taleswar, Boleswar, Paramananda (accused No. 1) and Bidyadhar (the deceased). On Jaleswar's death his widow Agadhoi remarried Bholeswar though the Tatter's first wife Nila was alive. Mahendra (accused No. 2) and Bhimendra (D. W. 1) are the Sons of accused No. 1. Sudam (P. W. 1) and Trinath (P. W. 10) are the sons of the deceased. On the death of Bholeswar, Nila and Agadhoi succeeded to 2.27 acres each. On Nila's death in 1958 there was litigation between Agadhoi and accused No. 1 in respect of Nila's share of 2.27 acres. To meet the litigation expenses these 2.27 acres were sold by Agadhoi to the deceased about 3 to 4 years ago.The prosecution case is that the deceased and P. Ws. 1 and 10 had cultivated the disputed land which is a p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1969Ori91
ORDERB.K. Patra, J.1. This is a petition under Section 17 of the Indian Companies Act (Act I of 1956) filed on behalf of M/s. Straw Products Limited (hereinafter called the Company) having its registered office at Jayhaypur, Rayagada in the district of Koraput for confirmation of the alterations in the Memorandum of Association of the Company.2. The petitioner-Company was register, ed on the 6th August, 1938 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913 as a Company Limited by shares. It is engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper and straw board etc. The authorised capital of the Company is Rs. 5,00,00,000 divided into 2,00,000 7% Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares of Rs. 100 each and 30,00,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each. The objects for which the Company was formed are set out in Clause 3 of its Memorandum of Association annexed to the petition as Annexure 'A'. The principal objects in brief are as under :--(1) To erect, purchase or take on lease or otherwi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1969Ori182
Barman, C.J.1. The petitioners challenge the validity of the amended Rule 103 (1) of the Orissa Excise Rules, 1965 framed by the Board of Revenue, Orissa and pray for refund of the excess fee illegally collected from the petitioners in circumstances hereinafter stated.2. On August 14, 1965, the Board framed Rule 103 (1) which provided as follows:'The fees for licenses for the retail vend of country spirit, fermented Tari, Pachwai, Ganja and Bhang shall be fixed by auction subject to a reserved fee sanctioned in each case by the Commissioner'.3. By a notification dated January 28, 1966, the Board amended the 1965 rules. The impugned amended Rule 103 (1) reads as follows:'The fee for licenses for the retail vend of country spirit, fermented Tari, Pachwai, Ganja and Bhang as well as for the retail sale (hereinafter referred to as 'off sale' or 'vend') of foreign liquor shall be fixed bv auction subject to a reserved fee sanctioned in each by the Commissioner'.4. A sale notification was is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1969Ori180
Barman, C.J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are dealers in excisable commodities inter alia foreign liquor. The point which arises in these writ petitions is whether a writ of mandamus can be issued for refund of countervailing duty illegally -- by mistake -- collected by a notification under Section 27 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (Act 2 of 1915 hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated March 31, 1961.2. These cases arise out of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyani Stores v. Stale of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1686 decided on September 21, 1965 where their Lordships of the Supreme Court, on an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, declared that the said notification enhancing the duty on foreign liquor by Rs. 30-00 per L.P. gallon was unenforceable. These writ petitions were filed in the month of August 1967 for refund of the countervailing duty illegally collected from the petitioners obviously under a mistake.3. The first que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1969Ori138; 1969CriLJ922
G.K. Misra, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I, P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case may be stated in brief. The accused and the deceased were cousins. They lived in adjacent houses, and were not pulling on well. On 9-6-1965 at about 6 P. M. they came in front of their respective houses in the village Danda and started quarrelling. The accused held a Kati-Katua and the deceased held a stick. The son of the accused had a Kati. In course of the quarrel Narasingha, the son of the accused, threw a Kati towards the deceased. The deceased warded off the Kati with his stick and it fell down near him. While he attempted to pick up the Kati, the accused gave a stroke with his Kati-Katua on the head of the deceased. The deceased received a severe cut injury and fell down senseless. The wife and the son of the accused caught hold of him and dragged him towards their house. The head of the accused struck against the door frame of his house resu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1969Ori110; 34(1968)CLT1372; (1969)IILLJ112Ori
Barman, C.J.1. Bisra Limestone Company Limited--who is stated to cany on mining operations at Bisra in Sundargarh District involving drilling, blasting, collection of blasted materials by mechanical means, breaking of boulders to separate limestone and dolomite mechanically and manually dumping and shovelling and other such operations stated to be incidental to mining--is the petitioner challenging the legality of the notification dated March 27, 1963 issued by the Government of Orissa Labour Department, purported to be in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 read with Section 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 11 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which the Government of Orissa fixed the minimum wages at rates mentioned therein, payable to the class of employees employed in stone-breaking and stone-crushing operations carried on by the petitioner in quarries situated in Orissa. The petitioner also challenges the show cause notices dated July 22...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 34(1968)CLT1293; 1969CriLJ827
ORDERB.K. Patra, J.1. The petitioners herein were convicted under Rule 11 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules {hereinafter referred to T.T. Rules) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 400 and in default to suffer R.I. for 6 weeks more. The case against them is that oil 22.4.1963 they were found transporting 83 bags of Mohua flowers by bullock carts and were detected at a place within the jurisdiction of Kamakshyanagar forest range and for such transport they did not possess any transit permit. Their defence is that they have purchased the Mohua Bowers from one Jagannath Agarwalla who admittedly was the lessee from Government in respect of Mohua flowers of the Pallahara range and that they were armed with the coupe permit, Ext. A, issued by Jagannath Agarwalla authorising them to transport the same on or before 23.4.1963. The findings of the Court below are that Jagannath Agarwalla is the forest contractor in respect of Mohua flower...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1970CriLJ637
G.K. Misra, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case in short is that on 15-4-1965 sometime in the afternoon the appellant put a bamboo 'Funkanala' on the throat of his wife (deceased), stood on either side of the Funkanala with his two legs by holding a Khunta (big wooden pole fixed to the ground) and as a result of this she died of strangulation. The defence is one of denial.2. The Doctor (P.W. 4) clearly stated that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation of her neck resulting in the fracture of the larynx. His evidence has not been dislodged in cross-examination and no attempt has been made before us to establish that the finding of the doctor is not warranted by the post-mortem report and examination. The learned Sessions Judge correctly held that the death was homicidal as a result of strangulation.3. The only question for consideration is whether the appellant is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1969Ori146; 1969CriLJ925
ORDERS. Acharya, J. 1. This is a revision by ten petitioners whose conviction and sentence under Section 294, I. P. C., as passed by Sri D. Naik, Magistrate, 1st Class (Judicial), Aska has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam by his judgment dated 12-9-1966 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1966 (G).2. The prosecution case in short is that the complainant on the date of occurrence had another criminal case before the First Class Magistrate, Aska against the accused persons, and after the adjournment of the said case to another date he came away from the Court and was taking rest under a banian tree near the Grain Gola of Aska. It is alleged that the accused persons while returning by that way, abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened to assault him, when they saw him sitting under the banian tree. Some persons who were passing on the road nearby intervened and saved the complainant from being assaulted by the accused persons.3. The petitioners in their de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1969Ori77; 35(1969)CLT46
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Deceased Gangadhar, father of defendant No. 3, and Dibakar (defendant No. 1) were brothers. Plaintiff No. 1 purchased the A schedule lands for Rs. 400 and plaintiff No. 2 purchased the B schedule lands for Ks. 500 by two registered sale deeds on 30-12-64 from defendant No. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that Gangadhar died in a separated status from defendant No. 1 and after his death his sole heir defendant No. 3 was in possession of the property. They accordingly prayed for declaration of their title and eviction of defendants 1 and 2 who were interfering with their possession. In the alternative there was a prayer that a decree for refund of consideration of Rs. 900 with interest is to be passed against defendant No. 3.Defendant No. 3 filed written statement fully supporting the case of the plaintifts. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit alleging that Gangadhar died in a joint status with defendant No. 1 and the entire joint family property devolved on defe...
Tag this Judgment!