Orissa Court March 1969 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.
Kusuma Dei and ors. Vs. Malati Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori195; 35(1969)CLT377
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The plaintiffs' suit was one for partition claiming 1/3rd interest in the total property. Defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 each claim 1/3rd interest. It appears that defendant No. 1 made indiscriminate transfers. The plaintiffs accordingly asked for an order of injunction to restrain the parties not to make any pendente lite transfers. On 13-5-64 the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order that for the ends of justice both the plaintiffs and defendants i to 3 should be restrained, during the pendency of the suit, from transferring any immovable property mentioned in the plaint schedule without express leave of the Court being obtained by an application. Despite this injunction order, defendant No. 1 (who died during the pendency of this revision) transferred on 14-12-64 some lands in favour of the petitioners who have not yet been implead-ed as parties to the suit. On 30-11-65 the petitioners filed an application before the Subordinate Judge to implead them ...
Balaram Tripathy and ors. Vs. Hemalata Dibya and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori196; 35(1969)CLT388
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. Title Suit No. 48 of 1956 in the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, was decreed on 21-12-61 on compromise between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 and ex parte against defendants 8 to 12. On 17-8-65, defendants 8 to 12 filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree. The application was allowed and the ex parte decree was set aside on 19-1-67. Against this order setting aside the ex parte decree, the Civil Revision has been filed by defendants 2 to 7. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that summonses were not served on defendants 8 to 12 and that thev had knowledge of the decree on 4-8-65. On the findings that there was sufficient cause for their absence and the application for restoration was not barred by limitation, the ex parte decree was set aside. 3. Mr. Dasgupta assails the order of the lower Court on the sole ground that the application for restoration was barred by limitation. Acco...
Ramahari Moharana and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori198; 35(1969)CLT358
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The petitioners claim to have purchased the lands under acquisition on 28-4-55. Notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was served in January 1963. On 30-4-63 the petitioners filed an application before the Land Acquisition Officer stating that their lands were being acquired and that the compensation was payable to them. No action was taken on this application. On 11-6-66 the award was passed in favour of the Collector as the lands were recorded as Anabadi. No notice was served on the petitioners under Section 12(2) of the Act giving them intimation of the award. On 16-10-66 the petitioners filed a second application by way of reminder to the earlier application, dated 30-4-63. Apparently the petitioners had no knowledge of the award by then. On 16-1-67 the Land Acquisition Officer passed an order rejecting the petitioner's application dated 30-4-63 on the ground that no objection was preferred within time in...
S.K. Ghosh Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori228; 35(1969)CLT496; 1969CriLJ1149
ORDERA. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has filed these five applications Under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. for expunging certain derogatory remarks against him made by the learned Munsif-Magistrate, 1st Class, Khurda in his judgments in G. R. Cases Nos. 369, 421, 422, 467 and 516 of 1965. At the relevant time, petitioner was working as Inspector General of Police, Orissa. All these cases were heard together for the sake of convenience.2. The brief facts which gave rise to the aforesaid G. R. Cases are as follows: Shri Dukshishyam Singh Samant, who figures as opposite party No. 2 in each of these criminal misc. cases, was working as the Fire Station House Officer, Khurda. He was transferred and Shri Banshidhar Pradhan who was examined as P. W. 4 in G. R. Cases Nos. 369, 421 and 422 of 1965 and as P. W. 1 in G. R. Cases Nos. 467 and 516 of 1965 was posted in his place and directed to relieve and take over charge from Shri Singh Samant. Shri Pradhan commenced taking over charge from his predecess...
Rajkishore Bhuyan Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-07-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori190; 35(1969)CLT513; 1969CriLJ995
ORDERS.K. Ray, J. 1. The sole petitioner has preferred this revision against his conviction and sentence, by an order of Sri U. N. Misra, Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Appeal No. 381-C of 1964, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by Sri S.N. Misra, S. D. M., Jaipur, dated 3-10-64, passed in G. R. Case No. 712 of 1961. 2. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 409, I. P. C., and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a term of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R. I. for further term of three months. 3. The charge against the petitioner is as follows. 'That you on or from 28-1-59 to 3-1-59 (sic) while working as the Mohurir of Dangadi Naib Tahsil Office and as such a servant under Government and in such capacity entrusted with certain property,to wit, an amount of Rs. 1081-32, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 409 of I. P. C. .... .'...
Chandra Madhab Misra Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-06-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ562Ori
S. Acharya, J.1. This revision is directed against the appellate Judgment passed by the Sessions JudgeCuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 1965, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 92 of the Factories Act. passed by a magistrate first classcuttack.2. It is alleged by the prosecution that P. W. 1, an Inspector of Factories,inspected a factory named Kalinga Cables and Metal Cast Company at B 12, Industrial Estate Khapuria Cuttack on 6 Jane 1963 once at 9 am. and again at 7 p.m. and found eleven workers engaged in the said concern which was running with power. Considering the said concern to be a factory as defined under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 the petitioner, as the alleged occupier of the said factory was prosecuted under Section 92 of the said Act for violation of certain provisions of the said Act.3. The defence all through asserted that there never existed a factory named Kalinga Cables and Metal Cast Company at Khapuria and that Kal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›