Orissa Court March 1968 Judgments
Hadu Khan and ors. Vs. Mahadev Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori221; 34(1968)CLT537; 1968CriLJ1623
ORDERS.K. Ray, J. 1. This is a petition by the members of the second party in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 28-3-66 passed by Sri K. M. Ram, Magistrate, 1st Class, Athagarh, declaring the possession of the first party in respect of 50.99 acres of Bhogra lands in village Kotapala.2. One Dasarathi was the Sarbarakar in respect of these Bhogra lands which are the subject-matter of the dispute in the 145 proceeding. In the year 1955, these lands were kept under the direct management of the State for some time and then another Sarbarakar was vested with the responsibility of management of these lands. According to the petitioners, they were the Bhag tenants under the said Dasarathi and were paying rent to him during his lifetime. After his death during the period of State management thery were paying rent to the Sarbara-kar in de facto management. The first party was appointed Sarabarakar in respect of the lands in dispute on 24-2-65 and took delivery of...
Tag this Judgment!Amruta Purohitani Vs. Jogesh Chandra Hota and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori5; 34(1968)CLT479
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. Between the parties a large number of arbitration cases were pending before the Arbitrator, Hirakud Land Organisation, Sambalpur. They entered into a compromise. The arbitration cases were disposed of in terms of the compromise. They are not the subject matter of the civil revision or the miscellaneous appeal. In paragraph 2 of the compromise petition filed before the Arbitrator, the compensation payable to the estate of Mst. Jema Purohitani in respect of submerged Bhogra and rayati lands in village Bausen was divided in certain proportions. The miscellaneous appeal is filed challenging this division. As the subject matter of the compromise in this paragraph consists of moveable property, there was no necessity for registrationland the compromise is held to be genuine land valid. The terms are enforceable. Mr. Sinha was, therefore, right, in making a concession that it was difficult to support the miscellaneous appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Arjuna Charan Patnaik Vs. Purnanand Patnaik and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori207
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. On 19-12-1964 the suit was decreed ex parte, The decree was signed on 5-1-196,5. On 30th of January, 1965, an application was filed under O. 9. Rule 13 C. P. C for setting aside the ex parte decree. The matter was heard and on 2nd of September, 1965, the ex parte decree was set aside subject to payment of costs. On payment of cost the suit was restored to file. The learned Munsif held that there was sufficient cause for the absence of the defendants on 19-12-1964 and that the application was within limitation as it was filed within 30 days from the date of the signing of the decree though it had been filed beyond 30 days from 19-12-1964 If the limitation runs from 19-12-1964 admittedly there was a delay of 12 days The Civil revision has been filed against the order dated 2-9-1965 setting aside the ex-parte decree 2. In revision, the finding of the learned Munsif that there was sufficient cause for absence of the defendants on the date of hearing is not assailed T...
Tag this Judgment!Hindusthan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori129; 34(1968)CLT437; [1968(17)FLR402]; (1968)IILLJ526Ori
Ray, J. 1. The petitioner is the Hindus-than Steel Ltd., Rourkela, represented through its Deputy General-Manager, which is operating the Steel Plant as a Public Sector undertaking at Rourkela in the district of Sundergarh, having its head-office at Ranchi. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or Order for quashing the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, opposite party No. 2, which has been published in the Orissa Gazette dated 30-4-65 2. The petitioner commissioned the Steel Plant at Rourkela in the year 1959, and in the year 1961, the petitioner-company introduced a scheme of production-bonus to enhance the production, including within its ambit certain categories of workmen who, as the management then thought, were directly responsible for the increased production. This scheme was for a period of three years and after its expiry, a new production-incentive-scheme was int...
Tag this Judgment!Hadibandhu Das Vs. the District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori148a; 34(1968)CLT420; 1968CriLJ1096
Barman, C.J.1. The petitioner -- an Excise vendor of Cuttack town, paying about Rs. 16000/- as license fee to Government was detained in pursuance of a detention order dated December 15, 1967 passed under Section 3(1) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act 4 of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act) purporting to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner preiudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is said that the petitioner was served with a document signed bv the District Magistrate. Cuttack pur-portina to incorporate the order of detention and the grounds all written in English which the petitioner, it is said, did not at all understand. The petitioner's case is that he had only a smattering knowledge of Oriva and no knowledge at all of English.2. On December 19, 1967 the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of the said detention order and for the issue of a writ of habeas corpussettinR the petitioner at liberty and of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›