Orissa Court April 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.
State of Orissa Vs. Gobind Choudhury and Sons
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori280; 35(1969)CLT592
Patra, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur allowing an application under Sections 8(2), 11(1) and 12(2) of the Arbitration Act filed by opposite party praying to refer a certain dispute between the parties to the arbitration of Sri S.K. Palit, retired Chief Engineer of the Government of Orissa. The opposite party who is a contractor had been entrusted by Government with the construction of a bridge over the river Rushikulya near Purushottampur in Ganjam district. He completed the construction of the bridge proper minus the super-structure. As certain disputes arose between the parties regarding rates of payment, the matter was referred to the arbitration of Shri S.K. Palit, a retired Chief Engineer of the Government of Orissa who, in due course, passed an award. It is the' common case of both the parties that in the award so passed, Shri Palit not only gave his decision in regard to rates for the work already completed but...
Gita Debi Saragi Vs. Madan Mohan Masanta and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori294; 35(1969)CLT562
G.K. Misra, J.1. Deceased Kissore Mohan and defendant No. 1 were brothers. They were separate in status, but their dwelling house was not partitioned by metes and bounds. Subasini (defendant no. 2), widow of Kishori Mohan, transferred undivided 8 annas interest in the disputed house and homestead by a registered sale deed to Gita Debi (plaintiff) on 27-4-62 for Rs. 2000/-. Gita Debi filed T. S. No. 23 of 1963 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore, for partition. Defendant No. 1 claimed to repurchase the property sold to the plaintiff under Section 4 of the Partition Act. As to the value of the house, there was contest. Ultimately a compromise petition was filed on 17-1-67 whereby the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 agreed that the value of the homestead would be Rs. 550/- per decimal. It was stated therein that defendant No. 1 would repurchase the disputed homestead within two months of the compromise, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to partition. This compromise ...
Pratap Kishore Patnaik Vs. Rama Chandra Patra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori278; 35(1969)CLT687
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. In S.C. Suit No. 14 of 1954 there was an ex parte decree against defendants 1 and 2. The decree was put into execution and the disputed property was sold for Rs. 240/- on 16-1-68. Defendant No. 2 filed an appeal before the District Judge contending that the disputed property was not liable to sale as it belonged to him and he was not personally liable under the decree. On 12-2-68 defendant No. 2 claims to have filed an application under Order 21, Rule 89 C. P. C. for setting aside the sale and to have filed a chalan for depositing the money. On that very day an order for interim stay of further proceeding in Execution Case No. 129 of 1966, in which the disputed property had been sold, was passed by the District Judge.On 13-2-68 the executing court received intimation of the order of stay. On 17-10-68 Misc. Appeal No. 51 of 1968 was dismissed by the District Judge. On 22-10-68, judgment-debtor No. 2 (petitioner) filed an application intimating the executing court t...
State of Orissa and anr. Vs. Govinda Choudhury
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori274; 35(1969)CLT630
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Govinda Chowdhury, opposite party, filed an application before the subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, making a prayer that the petitioners (State of Orissa and the Executive Engineer, Bhubaneswar Division) should be directed to file the agreement, notice under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter., referred to as the Act) and other papers relating to dispute, and to appoint an arbitrator for giving an award. It is not necessary to give the detailed terms of the agreement. Clause (23) of the agreement, so far as relevant, runs thus:'Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes... ...shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a Superintending Engineer of the-State Public Works Department unconnected with the work at any stage nominated by the concerned Chief Engineer. If there be no such Superintending Engineer it should be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chief Engineer concerned. It will be no objection to any su...
Judhistir Jena Vs. Surendra Mohanty and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori233
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The petitioner (defendant No. 1) got a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession in T. S. No. 33 of 1964, in the court of the Munsif, Puri on 18-1-65. The decree was put into execution in Execution Case No. 50 of 1965. Opposite Party No. 1 (the plaintiff) and Opposite Party No. 2 (defendant No. 2) are respectively the son and the widow of late Krushna against whom the decree has been passed. They filed an application under Section 47 C. P. C. challenging the executability of the decree on the ground that it was void. The objection was overruled though both of them were substituted in place of Krushna after his death. The plaintiff has now filed T. S. No. 394 of 1968 for a declaration that the mortgage by conditional sale dated 6-11-50 executed by Krushna in favour of the decree-holder and the decrees in T. M. S. No. 90 of 1954 and T. S. No. 33 of 1964 are not binding on the plaintiff. In this suit the plaintiff filed an application for stay of Ex...
Pratap Chandra Raj Vs. Madan Ram and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori273; 35(1969)CLT860
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The plaintiff's father and defendant No. 2 were brothers. The disputed house admittedly belonged to them. It was let out to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff's ease is that defendant No. 1 was to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 10/-per month. Previously he was collecting rent through defendant No. 2 though the house was allotted to his share in a partition. But from 1-8-64 to 31-7-67 defendant No. 1 did not pay any rent. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 360/- for a period of 3 years. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit alleging that he does not know anything of the partition and all through he knew defendant No. 2 as the landlord to whom he was paying rent at first at the rate of Rs. 2/- per month and subsequently at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month. He was not in arrears. Defendant No. 2 supported the case of defendant No. 1, but did not appear in court to examine himself. The learned S. C. C. Judge dismissed the suit holding that there was no relationship of landlord and t...
Mahant Sri Bhakti Charan Das Vs. Satyen Kumar Raichoudhury and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori241; 35(1969)CLT696
Barman, C. J.1. The point involved in these matters is whether the Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to entertain second appeals from an order of the Collector under Section 9 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act No. 1 of 1952). Section 9 (1) as substituted by Orissa Act XV of 1956, read with the proviso and the explanation is as follows: '9. Appeal against Collector's order under Sections 5, 6, or 7. (1) An appeal against any order of the Collector under Sub-section (4) of Section 3-B, Clauses (h), (i) and (k) of Section 5, Sub-section (1) of section 6 or 7, Sub-section (3) of Section 8 and Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 8-A, if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the Board of Revenue which shall dispose of the appeal according to the prescribed procedure: Provided that if such order is passed by Officer other than the Collector of the district an appeal if preferred within sixty days of such order shall lie to the said Collector, who shall d...
Golaprai JaIn Vs. Gouranga Meher
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori266; 35(1969)CLT648
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. In execution of a money decree against the petitioner (Judgment-debtor) the property of the judgment-debtor has been attached and sold, but the sale has not been confirmed. Bala-mukunda the brother of the judgment-debtor stood surety for the judgment-debtor, and asked for payment of the money by instalments. On 15-7-66 the instalment order was passed whereby Balamukunda was to pay at the rate of Rs. 500/- per annum from 15-3-67 onwards. He paid the first instalment of Rs. 500/- on 15-3-67. On 15-3-68 he defaulted. On 18-3-68 a petition was filed for extension of time, and towards the instalment he deposited Rs. 200/- on 11-4-68. The application for extension of time was rejected. Against the order rejecting this application the judgment-debtor has filed the Civil Revision. 2. Mr. Das for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection that the revision is not maintainable at the instance of the judgment-debtor. The objection is technical and I find no substance...
Khetrabasi Padhan Vs. Batakrishna Padhan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori262; 35(1969)CLT476
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The plaintiff filed T. S. No. 29 of 1965 in the court of the Munsif, Boudh, for granting relief of permanent injunction. Subsequently the plaint was amended with an alternative prayer for recovery of possession if the plaintiff was found to have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. The disputed property consists of 89.83 acres. It constitutes a definite share of an estate consisting of 95.10 acres. The plaintiff valued the, relief for recovery of possession at 10 times the annual revenue payable for the purpose of court-fees under Section 7(v)(b) of the Court Fees Act. The learned Munsif held that Section 7(v)(d) applied and that the plaintiff should value the suit at the market value of the land. The Civil Revision has been filed against this order. 2. Mr. Patnaik contends that Section 7(v)(b) applies. Mr. Panda concedes the aforesaid contention and in my opinion rightly. 3. Section 7(v)(b) of the Court Fees Act, as amended in Orissa, runs thus: 'I...
Surendra Mohapatra Vs. Annapurna Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Ori261; 35(1969)CLT474
G.K. Misra, J.1. The respondent (plaintiff) is the wife of the appellant (defendant No. 1). In T. S. No. 38 of 1966 defendant No. 1 did not file written statement and the suit was set ex parte against him. The case was posted to 27-1-67 for ex parte hearing. The plaintiff took time on that day and the case was adjourned to 22-2-67. The case was heard on behalf of the plaintiff and the ex parte decree was passed on 7-3-67, Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree on theground that he was lying ill from 2-2-67 to 14-3-67. The learned Court below accepted the version of defendant No. 1 that he was ill during that period and that there was sufficient cause for his absence on 22-2-67 and 7-3-67. He however dismissed the application under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. on the view that the ex parte order passed on 4-1-67 and 27-1-67 stood in the way of the defence contention, and that as there was no prayer for setting aside those ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »