Orissa Court August 1968 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Anandasingh Neggi Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori49; 34(1968)CLT1189; 1969CriLJ428
ORDERB.K. Patra, J.1. The petitioner, a motor driver, was prosecuted in the court of the Magistrate 1st Class, Nawarangpur on a charge under Section 304A I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to undergo R. I. for a further period of 15 days. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jeypore.2. The facts which are no more in dispute are that in the evening of 16-3-64 the appellant was driving an ambulance van bearing No. ORK 870 and was proceeding from Umarkote towards Jhorigam. The road is 24 ft wide of which the morrumed portion is 12 ft. at the centre. At a place near the village Mendhabeda. 3 women labourers were found proceeding on the right side of the road. On hearing the sound of the approaching vehicle, two of them crossed the road and went to its left side.Immediately after, the 3rd woman, Guni Malliani turned to cross the road to its left side and seeing this the petitioner turned the...
Stewart Science College and anr. Vs. Braja Sundar Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori137; 35(1969)CLT206
ORDERS. Barman, C.J.1. This revision is against an order of the learned Munsiff, 1st Court, Cuttack, by which he allowed the plaintiffs application under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code to sue in representative capacity as one of the students of the Ste-wart Science College. The learned Munsif also allowed an application on behalf of another student Bijoy Shankar Moda for being impleaded as a co-plaintiff in the suit. This arises out of a suit filed by a student against the Stewart Science College, Cuttack, its Principal, President, Secretary and the Managing Committee of the College with prayers, inter alia, for a declaralion that the plaintiff and the students of the college have a right to profess, practise and propagate their respective religion in the Stewart Science College precincts without violating the public order, morality or health and for a formal injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the celebration of Saraswati Puja in their right of professin...
Sarat Chandra Biswal and anr. Vs. Surendra Mohanty, Editor kalinga and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori117; 1969CriLJ763
Barman, C.J. 1. Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 1968 of alleged contempt arises out of a petition of an unusual nature described as a 'representation petition'--without mention of opposite party and without any specific prayer against anybody --filed by Sri San tosh Kumar Sahu, a party in a pending writ petition (O. T. C. No. 418 of 1967) in this High Court, alleged to contain matters purporting to scandalise the Orissa High Court, its Judges and the Chief Justice in particular; and Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1968 arises out of the publication of certain news items and editorial in the Oriya daily 'Kalinga' of Cuttack--all in connection with the ceremony of the First Flag Hoisting over the newly constructed Tower over the Orissa High Court on the last Republic Day, January 26, 1968.2. In Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No, 4 of 1968 the opposite parties against whom notices were issued by this Court were Sri Santosh Kumar Sahu of the Congress Party...
Sanyasi Behera Vs. Onarasi Alias Varanasi Kantamma and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori16; 34(1968)CLT1246
G.K. Misra, J.1. Against one order both the miscellaneous appeal and the civil revision have been filed. It is the common case of the learned advocates that miscellaneous appeal lies and the civil revision does not lie. The civil Revision is accordingly dismissed.2. The facts arising in this appeal may be stated in brief. On 58-12-58 defendants 1 and 2 and the husband of defendant 3 executed a registered sale deed (Ex. 1) in favour of defendant-4, the claimants under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. One Satyabadi Panda attached the disputed property in E. P. 82 of 59 in execution of a decree against defendants 1 to 3. Defendant 4 filed an objection under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. which was dismissed on 20-10-60. On 11-1-61 defendant 4 filed Title Suit No. 7 of 62 (T. S. No. 5 of 61 B. M.C.) under Order 21, Rule 63, C.P.C. as well as for declaration of title and for vacating the attachment effected by Satyabadi Panda. On. 9-8-61 defendants 1 to 3 executed an agreement for sale of the disputed ...
Bairagi Charan Mohanti Vs. Basanta Priya Devi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori67; 35(1969)CLT98
G.K. Misra, J.1. The suit had been filed in respect of A and B schedules lands and was decreed in respect of A schedule property. No appeal was filed and the matter became final. Only B schedule property constitutes the subject-matter of the second appeal. Facts relating to B schedule are stated hereunder.Defendant 1 is the recorded tenant of B schedule property with an area of 0.57 acre. On 1-5-46 a rent suit filed by the landlord against defendant 1 in respect of this property was decreed. On 30-9-46 defendant 1 executed an unregistered kabala in respect of this property in favour of the plaintiff. On 31-3-48 B schedule property was sold in court auction in Execution Case No. 1110 of 1947-48 in execution of the decree for rent. Defendant 3 purchased it in court auction. On 1-6-48 plaintiff filed an application under Section 228 of the Orissa Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for setting aside the auction sale on the ground of material irregularity and fraud in publishi...
Narasingo Maharana and ors. Vs. Chaitanya Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori59; 1969CriLJ432
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment dated 17-9-1966 passed by Sri T. Misra, Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Boudh in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1966 maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 379 I. P. C. passed by the trial court, and reducing the sentence of fine passed thereunder from Rs. 200 to Rs. 100 each, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant (P. W. 1) had taken lease of the disputed land locally known as Khatadi Kiari, from the Revenue Inspector on 24-7-196.4, and grew paddy thereon. The petitioners on 14-12-1964 forcibly entered upon these lands and cut and removed the paddy crop grown thereon in spite of the remonstrance by P. W. 1, the complainant. The complainant after informing the Revenue Inspector, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the police, filed the complaint in the court against the petitioners.It is to be noted here, th...
Manoranjan Samanta Kumar Vs. Brundabati Veergam
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori52
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Brundabati (defendant-opposite party) is the widow of the maternal uncle of Manoranjan (plaintiff-petitioner).Brundabati filed an application under Section 488, Cr. P.C. on behalf of her minor son alleging that the latter was born to her through the petitioner. The parties are Indian Christians. In Criminal Revision No. 493 of 1962, this Court allowed the application under Section 488, Cr. P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay every month a sum of Rs. 20 to the opposite party for the maintenance of the minor son.Title Suit No. 24 of 1964 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the First Munsif, Cuttack, for a declarati on that the petitioner is not the father of Brundabati's illegitimate son and that the minor is not entitled to recover any maintenance. Brundabati was arrayed as a defendant with the description 'for herself and as representing her alleged illegitimate minor son'. Thus though the name of the minor son was not given in the cause title, both Br...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›