Orissa Court April 1971 Judgments
Gadadhar Panda and anr. Vs. Gangadhar Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori24
R.N. Misra, J.1. The plaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jeypore dismissing their suit for partition. 2. One Appudu Panda who died in August 1959 had married two wives. He begot a son Baidvanath through his first wife Kalandi. Baidvanath died in 1961 leaving behind his widow (defendant no- 4) and four issues (the defendants 2. 3. 5 and 6). The second wife Sunamani is the plaintiff No. 2. Through her Appudu had 6 issues who are the defendant No. 1. the plaintiff No. 1. and the defendants 7. 8, 9 and 10 respectively. The plaintiff No. 1 is a minor and his mother the plaintiff No. 2 represents him. There is no dispute that all the properties were ancestral, that is, of Appudu. During Appudu's life time and the minority of the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 the family properties were partitioned under an Award dated 31-7-55. -It is alleged that this Award is partial and uniust and did not equally divide the property. It is a...
Tag this Judgment!Fakir Charan Das Vs. Satchidananda Raiguru
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori26
R.N. Misra, J. 1. The defendant is in appeal against the affirming decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. Cuttack in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. 2. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the house and the defendant is a tenant under him. The plaintiff sued for ejectment as also for recovery of arrears of rent of three months. 3. One of the defences was that there was no valid notice served determining the lease. On that plea Issue No. 3 was raised to the following effect: 'Is the notice served by the plaintiff on the defendant valid and legal?' In paragraph 3 of the plaint the plaintiff had pleaded that the term of the tenancy was that whenever the plaintiff would ask the defendant to give up possession of the house, he would vacate without protest. In paragraph 4 of the written statement it was pleaded: 'That the plaintiff cannot sue for eviction of the defendant from the disputed properties as he has not determined the relationship of the lessor and lessee betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Bariko Bauri and anr. Vs. Sariamoni Pandiani
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori33; 37(1971)CLT553
A. Misra, J.1. Defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment in a suit for a declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the suit lands.2. According to the plaintiff, the suit lands originally belonged to one Madan Satpatby who left two daughters Kundan and Ratan. After the death of Madan and his widow Tara. the two daughters inherited the properties. Plaintiff and Hiramoni are the two daughters of Kundan. Her father purchased the share of Ratan. After her parent's death, she alone with her sister Hiramoni succeeded to the properties. She purchased the share of Hiramoni in the year 1943 and thus became the full owner of the suit properties. She mortgaged the suit properties to defendant No. 1 under a usufructuary mortgage in 1947 for a period of ten years and put him in possession. On expiry of the said period, the mortgage having been satisfied, she got possession of the properties in January. 1958-. While she was thus in possession, it is alleged that the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Maliram Chowdhury Vs. Jagannath Modi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori17
R.N. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff who sued for recovery of Rs. 7690.72 paise as unpaid price of goods supplied on credit to the defendant is the appellant against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. Sambalpur who has dismissed his claim.2. Admittedly the plaintiff runs a wholesale and retail business in cloth. The main place of business is at Calcutta but there is a branch at Sambalpur. The defendant is a dealer in cloth and had certain purchases made from the plaintiff on four different dates in the month of April, 1964. The total price of the goods taken on these four dates came to Rupees 7453.21 paise. The plaintiff claimed that these transactions were on credit and the memos on the respective dates were signed by the defendant in token of receipt of the goods and it was stipulated that the defendant would pay up the money. The defendant omitted to pay the amount. Hence the suit.3. The defendant contended that the plaintiff Maliram Chowdhury was not the proprietor of the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Kumar Praharaj and anr. Vs. Sri Jagannath Jew and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1971
Reported in: 37(1971)CLT503
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment in a Second Appeal disposed of by Barman, J., as he then was. When this appeal came before a Division Bench for hearing, the correctness of an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in ILR (1963) Cut 817 = (AIR 1965 Orissa 76) (Nabaghana Samal v. Bhagawata Gossain.) was doubted and the vires of Section 73 (2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (2 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was questioned. 2. The Division Bench thereupon referred the appeal to be heard by a Full Bench under Rule 2, Chapter V. Part II of the Rules of the Court. It also formulated four points to be determined by the Full Bench. The points referred are the following ;-- (1) Whether the expression 'trustee appointed under the Act' in Sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 includes all kinds of trustees, hereditary and non-hereditary, or whether it is confined to non-here...
Tag this Judgment!Trilochan Mabakul Vs. the Utkal University and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori67
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. The petitioner appeared in M.A. Examination in English in July, 1969. His roll number was 387. The marks obtained by him are indicated in the mark sheet (Annexrure 8). The mark sheet is extracted hereunder:'UTKAL UNIVERSITY Dated Bhubaneshwar, 2-12-1970. To, Trilochan Mahakul. The following marks were awarded to him at the M.A. in English (whole) Examination of July, 1969. Roll No. 387Subjects Marks awardedMaximum Marks.EnglishPaper I42100 Paper II42100 Paper III45100 Paper IV37100 Paper V46100 Paper VI45100 Pacer VII0100 Paper VIII32100Total 289800In the first six papers he secured 257 marks out of 600. His case is that while answering the 7th and the 8th paper he felt that he would not do well and would not get a second class which is obtained if 48 per cent. marks is secured. Accordingly, he scored all the answers in the 7thand the 8th paper. But the university authorities illegally awarded him 32 marks in the 8th paper as a result of which he was shown to nave ...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Chandra Mohanty Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ196Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. The petitioner was serving as an electrician under M/s. Bisra Lime Stone Company Limited at Biramitrapur in the district of Sundergarh. In the year 1966 he was proceeded against for misconduct and was dismissed by order dated 26-8-66 by the employers after due enquiry. The Gangpur Labour Union espoused the cause of petitioner and wanted to raise a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Jharsuguda, (opposite party No. 2). The opposite party No. 2 called upon the employers for furnishing their comments against the alleged wrongful dismissal and posted the matter to 5th November, 1966 for joint discussion. As there was no formal conciliation proceeding taken by the opposite party No. 2, the petitioner raised this dispute afresh through the Rourkela 'Majdur Sabha which union was then in existence. The opposite party No. 2 communicated to the petitioner on 19-7-67 his decision declining to take any proceedings under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Dispu...
Tag this Judgment!Chakradhar Mohanty Vs. Kumuduni Dei
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori64
A. Misra, J.1. The appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'The Act') praying for a decree for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. Subsequently, on his application, he was allowed to amend the petition by adding an alternative prayer for a decree against the respondent for judicial separation on the ground of desertion.2. The parties were married on 8-5-51 according to Hindu customary rights in village Tulumtola. After marriage the respondent, Kumuduni came to appellant's house at Rasidpur and both of them lived as husband and wife for 3 years. About a year or so after the marriage, a child was born to the respondent, but died shortly after its birth. In January, 1954, the appellant, who was a Government servant, was deputed to Gandhigram at Madurai in the State of Madras to undergo a course of training. He left the village on 7-1-54 and according to him, at that time, the respondent was having her month...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa, Through the Secretary, Department of Mining and Geolo ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori68
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The State ofOrissa through the Secretary, Department of Mining and Geology, is the petitioner. Its case may be stated in short. It is the owner in possession of an area of 462.16 acres of land in village Boula in the district of Keonjhar. The said area contains chromite minerals ores. This area had been held under a mining lease by Sri M.A. Tulloch (hereinafter to be referred to as Tulloch). The term of that lease expired on 1-6-1965. On 27-11-1964 Tulloch applied, for renewal of the lease. By an order (Annexure I) dated 27-5-1965 the application was rejected by the petitioner on the ground inter alia that the State Government had decided not to grant lease of the area to private parties and the same was required for exploitation by the State itself. There was an overall shortage of chromite in the State and it was intended that the ores raised from the area would feed the industries run by the State in the public sector.On 10-6-1965 Tulloch filed a revision petition...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa and anr. Vs. Govind Chaudhury
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori76
Ray, J.1. The sole question for consideration in these appeals is whether sufficient cause has been shown within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. If sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, the Court may, in its discretion, condone delay and admit the appeals. 2. This batch of appeals is from a common order dated 4-8-1970 passed by Sri D.N. Misra, Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, under Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, by which six applications, being the subject-matter of six misc. cases, viz., Nos. 50, 13, 15, 16. 28 and 29 of 1967, were heard together and disposed of. In all those cases, the respondent was the petitioner who had obtained six awards in six arbitration proceedings, commenced in pursuance of the arbitration clauses in six different contracts with the present appellant relating to disputes arising in connection with each such contract. The arbitrators submitted their awards on January 16, 1970, in all these cases...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »