Orissa Court May 1968 Judgments
Sankar Behera and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori73; 34(1968)CLT766; 1969CriLJ502
ORDERS.K. Ray, J.1. The two petitioners were convicted under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, by Sri K. S. Misra, Assistant Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Sessions Trial No. 40/3/6 of 1964-65. Petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to R. I. for two years and petitioner No. 2 to undergo R. I. for four years. On appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners were maintained by Sri G. K. Misra, Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Criminal Appeal No. 129/65 by his judgment dated 1-8-66.2. There were 16 accused persons put on trial of whom only these two petitioners were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.3. The prosecution case is that on the night of 18t'h February 1964, or in the small hours of the morning of 19th February, the two petitioners and a number of others entered the Khamar house of P. W. 1 in their attempt to loot the paddy stocked on the threshing floor. This dacoity was a pre-planned one and P. W. 2, the informant, being aware of this plan which had been decided in a meeting on the...
Tag this Judgment!Rasbihari Panda and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori182; 34(1968)CLT605
Barman, C.J.1. This is a group of five writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to challenge the action of the Government of Orissa in the matter of their selection of purchasers of Kendu leaves by advance purchase contract through private negotiation in the manner they purported to do in exercise of their power under Section 10 -- a provision relating to disposal of Kendu leaves -- of the Orissa Kendu Leaves ' (Control of Trade) Act, 1961 (Orissa Act 28 of 1961) (hereinafter refened to as the Act of 1961) the object of which as its preamble shows, it to provide for control and regulation of trade in Kendu leaves by the creation of State monopoly in such trade 2. The main grounds on which the petitioners seek to challenge the action of the State Government are that they are mala fide arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution Though the facts in all these petitions are not exactly the same, the points raised in ...
Tag this Judgment!indal Employees' Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Two ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-08-1968
Reported in: 34(1968)CLT745; [1968]22STC460(Orissa)
A. Misra, J.1. The Indal Employees' Co-operative Society Ltd., Hirakud, in this application calls in question the assessment orders for the years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66 and for the quarter ending 30th June, 1966, under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The orders of assessment for the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 amount to Rs. 2,172.28, Rs. 2,368.28 and Rs. 3,876.71 respectively, as per orders at annexures B/1 to B/3. The petitioner preferred appeals against these orders of assessment before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sambalpur Range, who, by his order dated 16th November, 1966, as per annexures C/1 to C/3, confirmed the same. While the validity of the aforementioned orders of assessment were under challenge, the Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur Circle I, issued notices under Section 12(5) for assessment for the subsequent period, and in spite of objection, made assessment of Rs. 13,625.33 and a penalty of Rs. 2,000 for the year 1965-66 and assessed Rs. 2,538....
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Das Panda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-06-1968
Reported in: 34(1968)CLT884; (1969)ILLJ433Ori
G.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff was Sub-Deputy Collector in the permanent cadre of the Orissa Subordinate Administrative Service, He was removed from service by the defendant-respondent by its order dated 8 December 1954 on a charge of bribery, The order of removal was set aside by the High Court on 4 November 1957 in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 339 of 1956. The order of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court on 10 December 1958. Plaintiff subsequently filed another writ application in the High Court on the allegation that certain matters had not been considered in the earlier writ application. This was withdrawn on 7 September 1960. The suit is filed for a declaration that the order of removal of the plaintiff passed by the defendant on 8 December 1954 is illegal and inoperative in law, the plaintiff is to be deemed to continue in service under the defendant and for recovery of arrears of salary.2. The order of removal was challenged in the plaint on various grounds which nee...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Das and ors. Vs. Liquidator Puri Bank Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori183a; 34(1968)CLT863; [1969]39CompCas650(Orissa)
Patra, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Hon'ble Company Judge rejecting an application made by the petitioners praying that Ex Case No 1/65 should not proceed against them. The Official Liquids for Pun Bank Ltd which is under liquidation obtained a decree against one Krishna Chandra Das and started execution proceedings against him praying therein that the properties covered by items Nos. 1 to 13 of the schedule appended to the application be attached and sold for satisfaction of the decree. During the pendency of the proceeding Krishna died on 12-10-60, leaving behind him the petitioners as his heirs. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are his sons. Petitioner No. 3 Bimala Dei is his widow and petitioner No. 4 Mukta Dei is his mother. The four petitioners were substituted as legal representatives in the Execution Case and notices under Order 21, Rule 22 C. P. C. were served on them on 21-6-61. They, however did not appeal in Court to file any objection. On 28-8-61 order was passe...
Tag this Judgment!Surya Narayan Sahu Vs. Banamali Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori206; 34(1968)CLT1185
G.K. Misra, J. 1. Defendant 1 executed a simple mortgage bond for sell and on behalf of her minor son (defendant 2) on 20-9-47 in favour of the plaintiff for Rupees 4500 with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. In T M. S. No. 41 of 1953 plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree for RP 6846/10/- on 31-7-54. Final decree was passed on 18-7-56 for Rs. 11.857-30 p. The mortgage security was sold on 23-1-61 for Rs. ft 825-00 in E P. No. 265 of 1956 The sale was confirmed on 28-4-62. For the balance dues, plaintiff filed an application on 5-8-64 under Order 34, Rule 6, C. P C. for a personal decree. It was allowed by an order passed on 27-9-65. Against this order the appeal has been filed. 2. The only contention urged by Mr. Ramdas is that the application under Order 34. Rule 6, C P. C is barred by limitation as it was filed beyond three years from the date of sale it is conceded that if the starting point of limitation would be the date of confirmation of sale the application is ...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Kadia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the General Manager, S ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori234; 34(1968)CLT823
Patra, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit to recover Rs. 5070 from the Union of India representing the defendant-Railways was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur. The plaintiff was the endorsed consignee in respect of a consignment of 220 bags of sugar booked from Bhatni to Jharsuguda. When the consignment was delivered there was a total shortage of 4437 kg. or 119 mds. of sugar. The plaintiff obtained a short certificate and served notices under Section 77 of the Railways Act and under Section 80 Civil P. C. Thereafter he filed a suit claiming damages for 4437 kg. of sugar and the cost of 36 gunny bags received in torn condition, amounting to Rs. 5070. The Union of India denied the title of the plaintiff to the goods and contended that the goods having been booked at owner's risk rate without compliance with the packing conditions and the bags being old and torn the defendant cannot be held liable for the loss. It was further contended that the statutory not...
Tag this Judgment!Prasana Kumar Patra Vs. Smt. Sureswari Patrani
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori12; 34(1968)CLT937
ORDERS. Barman, C.J. 1. This is a husband's appeal1 against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, on the wife's application for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1955) by which the wife was granted Rs. 30 as interim maintenance and Rs. 75 as litigation expenses.2. The relationship between the husband and the wife does not appear to be very cordial in that on February 1, 1967 the husband filed a suit against the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the said suit the wife filed this petition under Section 24 for interim maintenance and for expenses of the litigation. According to the wife, the husband has sufficient income to the extent of Rupees 2,033 per year. The learned Subordinate Judge on appreciation of the evidence as discussed by him in his judgment, which I need not repeat herein, came to the conclusion that taking a modest view of the earnings of the husband it w...
Tag this Judgment!Kurupa Naik and ors. Vs. Bhagaban Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori181; 34(1968)CLT1195
Patra, J.1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 41 of 1964 in the file of the Subordinate Judge Cuttack have come up in Revision against thp order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 30-11-65 rejecting the plaintiff's prayer for amending of the plaint and directing them to pay court fee on the amount of Rs 4,816-00.2. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 as marfatdars of the deity plaintiff No. 5 brought the suit alleging that the defendants without having any manner of right to the suit scheduled properties valued at Rs. 4816-00 were threatening to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession over the same and praying that they may be restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff? possession over the disputed properties The suit was valued at Rs. 100-00 for the purpose of court fee under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act but for the purpose of jurisdiction it was valued at Rs. 4816-00. Accordingly ad valorem court fees on Rs. 100-00 were paid on the plaint. The learned S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›