Orissa Court July 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.
Ramavtar and ors. Vs. Pop Sing Mahadeb Prasad
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ori36; 35(1969)CLT981
Acharya, J.1. This is an appeal by leave from the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. K. Misra (as he then was) in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 71 of 1961.2. The facts of the case, in short, are as follows :A decree was passed by the Calcutta High Court in the Original Side for Rs, 16,765-69 nP. inclusive of interest at 6 per cent. When the said decree on transfer was pending in execution in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Bala-sore, the judgment-debtor prayed for instalments under Section 13 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Act) on which Misc. Case No. 72 of 1960 was started. The said Misc. case having been dismissed on 8-7-1961 the judgment-debtor preferred Misc. Appeal No. 71 of 1961 in this court which was heard and dismissed by a Single Bench of this court and hence this appeal.3. The only question for consideration Is whether a transferee court in Orissa in executing such a decree passed in a court in Bengal would have to follow the provisio...
Ramakanta Mohanty Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ori49
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 30-12-67. The Divisional Forest Officer, however, gave retrospective operation to the order of dismissal by saying that the services of Sri Ramakanta Mohanty Forest Guard are dispensed with, with effect from the date of his absconding from head quarters, i.e. from 23-5-66. The only contention urged by Mr. R. N. Das is that the order of dismissal cannot be given retrospective operation. This is concluded by the decision in AIR 1966 SC 951, Jeeva Ratnam v. State of Madras. It was stated therein that the order of dismissal would be valid from the date when it was passed and the retrospective part can be separated from the order of dismissal. Following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the dismissal order would take effect from 30-12-67. 2. The writ application is accordingly allowed. A writ of mandamus would issue to the opposite parties, directing them to treat the petitioner as continuing in service till 30-12-67 on whic...
Banchchanidhi Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ori56
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. The petitioner was served with the following charges:'Charge No. 1. You have disobeyed the Government order of transfer, transferring you to Dhenkanal Power House in office order No. 4795 dated 16-9-50 of the Executive Engineer, General Electrical Division, Cuttack, and tried to avoid the transfer by false pretensions. Charge No. 2. You have not vacated the Government quarters even after receiving your above-mentioned transfer order. Several wild efforts of Government proved futile because of your adamant nature, which proves your disobedience and insubordination. Your claim that the house has been donated to you by the Ex-Ruler of Nayagarh is definitely not correct. The land on which the house stands belongs to the Government. So, the house cannot belong to you. The house was only allotted to you as Engine Driver of the Power House for occupation. Charge No. 3. You have remained absent from duty wilfully for more than a year after the above transfer and always trie...
K. C. Gajapathi Narayan Deo Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bihar and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-24-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR861(Orissa)
G. K. MISRA C.J. - The facts leading to this reference may be stated in brief. The assessment year is 1959-60. The assessee had taken lease of about 900 acres of land for preparation of salt. These lands were valued at Rs. 1,54,000 for the purpose of wealth-tax on June 30, 1958. The assessee contended that these lands should be excluded from the assets for determining the net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act. This contention was rejected. A reference was also rejected and the assessee ultimately came to the High Court. On September 5, 1966, this court called for a reference on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, revocable transactions like leasehold salt lands could be regarded as assets of the lessee for computation of wealth-tax ?'An identical case came up for consideration in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Srimathi Martinammal Machado, where their Lordships held that a leasehold of the type which is revocable in character is excluded from comp...
Bhajuram Ganapatram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ori38; [1970]75ITR285(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The question referred to this Court by the Tribunal, under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, runs as follows :'Whether in the facts and circumstances, penalty under Section 28 (1) (c) of the Income Tax, Act, 1922, has been valid-ly imposed'.2. The facts out of which this question of law arises may be stated in brief. The assessment year is 1953-54. The assessee was a Hindu Undivided Family of which one Ganapatram was the Karta. During the accounting year, on 20-7-52, the following credit appeared in the cash book of the assessee :Jankibai, mother of Ganapatram....Rs. 10,000/-Lakshmi Bal, wife of Ganapatram....Rs. 4,000/-Rukmini Bai, widowed daughter-in-law of Ganapatram....Rs. 4,000/-Ginni Bai, wife of grandson of Ganapatram....Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 20,000/-The assessee asserted that this sum of Rs. 20,000/- belonged to the four ladies. This contention was rejected all through. A tippa book was produced at a certain stage. It was held to be not genuine. The sum o...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. K. Lingamurti and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ori37; 35(1969)CLT1060; [1970]75ITR96(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The question referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court runs thus :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount to be deducted under Sec. 50A of the Estate Duty Act, had been correctly determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 3200/- ?.'2. The relevant facts appearing from the order of reference may be stated in brief. The deceased K. Buchiraju, who died on 5-8-61 had made two gifts of Rs. 40,000/- each to his two grandsons separately on 21-10-57. The deceased deposited Rs. 6400/- as advance gift tax under Section 18 of the Gift Tax Act. The gift tax payable was determined at Rs. 3200/-. At the time of assessment he was given credit to the tune of Rupees 640/- which represents 10 per cent of the amount deposited. The total amount available for gift tax was Rs. 7040. The assessee took a refund of Rs. 3840/-.Section 50A of the Estate Duty Act makes a provision that where tax has already been paid under the Gift Tax Act in respect of gift of any p...
Lakhman Kumar Kar Vs. Mst. Basanta Kumari and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ori43
Patra, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 407 of 1963. The parties in this litigation are residents of the ex-State area of Gangpur now comprised in the district of Sundergarh. One Udhaba Kar, who was separate from his brothers, died in the year 1938 leaving behind Sunakha-dika, the widow of his pre-deceased son Krupa, the two daughters of Krupa who are the plaintiffs, Bikram who was Krupa's only son and the disputed properties. Bikram died on 11-2-1945 and Sunakhadia died in the year 1953. Thereafter litigation started in respect of the disputed properties between the plaintiffs who claimed the entire property for themselves and the defendant who is the grandson of one of the separate brothers of Udhab. The claim of the plaintiffs is that on the death of Udhab his entire properties devolved on his grandson Bikram as the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the 1937 Act), whi...
Kirti Chandra Bariha Vs. Dukhu Das and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ936
ORDERA. Misra, J.1. The revision is directed against an order declaring that member-1st Party who is Opposite Party No. 1 is entitled to possession of the disputed lands and ordering restoration of possession to him in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. Opposite Party No. 1 filed a petition on 22-1-1968 before the learned Magistrate alleging that while he was in cultivating possession of the disputed lands, they were attached by the police on 17-10-1964 and prayed for restoration of possession. On the learned Magistrate directing the police for a report, the officer-in-charge of the police station in his report dated 4-3-1966 informed the learned Magistrate that he had already submitted a report to start a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. on 29-10-1964. The learned Magistrate apprehending breach of the peace, passed a preliminary Order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and parties were directed to file theft written statements, documents and affidavits.Member-Slid Party (Oppos...
Niranjan Sahu Vs. Narasu Satpathy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ori46; 35(1969)CLT977
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner and opposite party No. 1 were candidates for election of Sarpanch in the Golantha Gram Panchayat. The election was held on 3-6-67 and the results were published on 9-6-67. Opposite party No. 1 was declared elected. The petitioner filed an election petition under Section 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be called as the Act) for setting aside the election of opposite party No. 1 on the ground, amongst others, that he was disqualified under Section 25 (1), Clause (1) of the Act as he was a debtor to the Aska Multipurpose Co-operative Society. The election petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 109 of 1967. It was taken up for trial. After the close of the entire evidence the petitioner filed an application for further cross-examination of opposite party No. 1 himself with reference to a document which was called for earlier but produced subsequent to his examination on oath. The application was filed under Order 18, Rule 17 C....
N. Subramaniam Vs. Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-15-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ori12
R.N. Misra, J. 1. The petitioner has come before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the legality of the order dated 5-10-64. He happens to be an employee under the South Eastern Railway and was working as a Block Maintainer, Grade II. The Railway Administration sanctioned some Block Maintainers' posts in Grade I, temporarily for a period of 2 years in April, 1963, and the petitioner, after passing the prescribed test examination, was promoted from Grade II to Grade I as a Block Maintainer. The order of appointment is in Annexure A and is dated 6-3-64. About 7 months thereafter he was reverted to his former Grade II post.2. Mr. Palit, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended (1) that the order of appointment in Annexure A wasof a substantive nature and was not officiating in character and, therefore, the reversion which was made without com-plying with the requirements under Article 311(2) of the Constitution is bad, and (2) that the order of reversion ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »