Orissa Court April 1968 Judgments
indrajit Behera and anr. Vs. Bhaja Meher and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori257
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Sukru and Ghana were brothers. Plaintiffs are the sons of Sukru. The disputed property fell to the share of Ghana in a family partition. After his death, his widow Rukmani inherited the property and was in possession. She sold the disputed land to defendant-1 in 1937 for Rs. 350/- Plaintiffs' case is that they are the sole next reversioners of Ghana. On Rukmani's death on 12-4-53 they are entitled to the possession of the suit property. Defendant-1 had transferred a portion of the disputed land in favour of defendant-2. The main relief claimed by the plain-tiffs was worded thus-'That the sale dated 24-9-37 being invalid beyond the lifetime of Rukmani, title of the plaintiffs to the suit lands be declared and they be put in possession of the same.'Defendants filed a joint written statement. Amongst other pleas, they averred that the market value of the suit land would be more than Rs. 7000/-, that the suit was grossly undervalued and that court fee was payable on t...
Tag this Judgment!Baidyanath Patnaik Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1968
Reported in: 34(1968)CLT811; 1969CriLJ339
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner was the officer-in-charge of Dharmasala Police Station in the district of Cuttack on 25.12.1967. That day at about 7-30 p.m., a trap was laid on him by the Vigilance Police on the allegation that the petitioner received bribe. Vigilance Case No. 45 of 1967 was registered at the Cuttack Vigilance Police Station under Section 161, I.P.C. In respect of the very incident, the petitioner made a Station Diary entry and filed F.I.R. in the Dharmasala Police Station giving a completely different version of the story. That case was registered as Dharmasala Police Station Case No. 151 of 1967. According to the Vigilance Department, the petitioner accepted illegal gratification. Petitioner's case is that currency notes were put into his pocket forcibly without his knowledge and against his desire. It is unnecessary to give further details of the story which is not relevant to the point in issue.2. Two separate investigations went on. Dharamasala P.S. Case No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankarsan Nath Vs. Sachidananda Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-02-1968
Reported in: 34(1968)CLT460; 1969CriLJ575
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. There is a dispute in respect of a particular piece of land in village Kujang between Sachidananda Das and Krupasindhu. Patra. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 96 of 1967 in the Court of the S.D.O., Jagatsinghpur, Sachidananda (first party) obtained an, ex parte order on 26.6.1967 under Section 144(2), Cr.P.C. against Krupasindhu Patra (2nd party) who was called upon to show cause-by 16.8.1967 as to why the order should not be made absolute. The order was served on Krupasindhu Patra on 31st July 1967 at 11 a.m. Sankarsan Nath, the gumastha of Krupasindhu, filed an application under Section 144, Cr.P.C. before the same-S.D.O. in Criminal Misc. Case No. 97 of 1967 on 31.7.1967. The learned S.D.O again passed an ex parte order under Section 144(2) against Sachidananda and his father Adwait Charan Das calling upon them to-show cause by 16.8.1967 as to why the order should not be made absolute. Thus, Sachidananda and Krupasindhu were restrained from going upon the disputed l...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Prasad (R.D.) and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-01-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ428Ori
Barman, C.J.1. This matter involves the question of penalty for alleged breach of the terms of the award of an industrial tribunal by R.K. Prasad, manager, and B.D. Sharma, owner of Orient Colliery, Brajrajnagar, District Sambalpur, under Sections 29 and 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. On 26 May 1956, the All-India Industrial Tribunal (Colliery Disputes), Calcutta, published its award after adjudication between the coal mines referred to therein and their workmen in the matter of the industrial dispute regarding wages, inclusion of pay for lead and/or lift calculation of bonus, provident fund, etc. The said All-India Industrial Tribunal, having been presided over by Sri J.N. Majumdar, is hereafter referred to as the Majumdar award.3. The Majumdar award was given effect to from 26 May 1956, the date on which it was published. The award was subsequently modified by a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India by its dec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›