Orissa Court January 1972 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.
Janha Bewa Vs. Iswar Gochhait and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori30
S.K. Ray, J.1. This is ' a second appeal by the plaintiff from the confirming decision of the Court below dismissing her suit.2. The relationship of the parties will be apparent from the following genealogy: DEBI GOCHHAYAT | -------------------------------------------------- | | Bhima Panu | | Baidhar -------------------------------------- | | | | ---------------- Chakradhan Shankar Dhar-1 (D-1) | | | | | | Sunakar Arata Gurucharan | | --------------- (D-5) (D-6) (D-7) | | | | | | Iswar (D.2) Panchu (D-3) ------------------ ---------------------- | | --------------------------------- --------------------------------- | | | | | | | Padi (D-4) Kalandi Radhu Janha Sridhar Girihari Mathuri (plaintiff) (daughter) This genealogy was set out in the plaint, and was not challenged by the defendants.3. The plaintiff's case is that Bhima and Panu the two brothers partitioned their properties in two halves, and were in possession of their respective shares. After the death of Panu, his three sons,...
Purna Chandra Patnaik Vs. Kalidas Sen and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori65
S.K. Ray, J.1. This second appeal is by defendant No. 2 from the reversing decision of Shri N.P. Mohapatra, Subordinate Judge, Sambalpnr, in Title Appeal No. 58/8/12 of 1966-67 decreeing the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of defendant-1 from the suit-house standing on plot No. 1786/2519, recovery of possession and for arrears of rent and damages, and alternatively for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession. This plot measuring six decimals admittedly stood recorded in the names of four tenants. Two of them, namely, Hari Shankar and Santosh Barkk sold it to the plaintiffs by an unregistered sale-deed in 1953 for a consideration of Rupees 200/-, Subsequently to this purchase, the plaintiffs constructed a house thereon and were possessing the same. Defendant-1 was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit-house in September, 1982, on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. Defendant in collusion with defendant-2 subsequently defaulted in paymen...
Superintending Engineer, National Highway Project Vs. Baidhar Lenka an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-28-1972
Reported in: 38(1972)CLT418; (1972)IILLJ356Ori
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner is the Superintending Engineer, National Highway Project under Works and Transport Department of the Government of Orissa. The National Highway Project was established by the State Government with the aid of the Central Government from the funds of the International Development Association and is being controlled and managed as a departmental activity by the works department of the Government of Orissa under the direct supervision and control of officers who are civil servants appointed by the State Government. Opposite Party 1 was appointed as a roller-helper with effect from 1-7-63 under the defunct Baripada highway division. He was subsequently promoted to the post of roller-driver with effect from 1-9-64. He worked for some time. Again he was appointed as a roller-driver with effect from 20:3-67 by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Balasore, with the approval of the Executive Engineer, Balasore highway division. The terms and conditions of his app...
Mazdoor Sangh, Titaghur Paper Mills No. 3 Vs. the Presiding Officer, I ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-1972
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ347Ori
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner's case may be stated in short. The Mazdoor Sangh (petitioner) under M/s. Titaghur Paper Mills No. 3 at Choudwar (opposite party No. 2) was registered as a trade union on 12-10-1968. The total strength of permanent workmen under opposite party No. 2 is about 1164 and out of them 712 workmen are members of the petitioner-union. The Titaghur Paper Mills Workers' Union (opposite party No. 3) is the rival union of workmen under opposite party No. 2. An industrial dispute between opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 3 was referred by the State of Orissa (opposite party No. 4) to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (opposite party No. 1) on 5-4-69 for adjudication. The reference was numbered as Industrial Dispute Case No. 13 of 1969. The dispute was as follows:Whether the existing wage structure of the employees of Titaghur Paper Mills No. 3 at Choudwar in the District of Cuttack needs any revision. If so, what should be the details. 2. In West ...
Rama Chandra Palo Vs. Kala Palo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ori261; 38(1972)CLT331
A. Misra, A.C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 44 (2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) against an order of the Endowment Commissioner under Section 42 (6) of the Act.2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are as follows: The appellant and respondents are the hereditary trustees of the institution known as Sri Radhakanta Swamy temple. On 15-10-1928, a scheme was framed for the management of the said institution by the Board of Commissioners under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1927. As the hereditary trustees were excluded from the scheme, a suit was filed in the Court of the District Judge. Ganjam by the representatives of the three branches Madan Palo, Kalu Palo and Brundaban Palo. The District Judge disposed of the suit agreeing with the findings of the Board of Commissioners by his iudgment dated 4-8-1931. The plaintiffs therein preferred as Appeal Case to the Madras High Court wh...
Vulcan Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-1972
Reported in: 38(1972)CLT242; [1972]42CompCas326(Orissa)
S.K. Ray, J.1. This case was referred to a Division Bench and so it has come before us.2. This reference was necessitated on account of different prevailing views on the question involved, one represented by Registrar of Companies v. Haribansha Misra, [1969] 39 Comp. Cas. 990, A.I.R. 1969 Orissa 234 which is based on the analogy of the decision in State of Bombay v. Bandhan Ram Bhandani, [1961] 31 Comp. Cas. 1 ; [1961] 1 S.C.R. 801 ; A.I.R, 1961 S.C. 186 and the other by the decision in Andhra Provincial Potteries Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, [1969] 39 Comp. Cas. 1000 ; A.I.R. 1970 A.P. 70 following Emperor v. Pioneer Clay and Industrial Works Ltd., A.I.R. 1948 Bom. 357 which, according to the learned referring judge, is in conformity with the language of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). The Orissa case as well as the Andhra Pradesh case turned on the interpretation of Section 220(1) of the Act and while the former relied on...
Bhagaban Chuan and ors. Vs. Bhagabat Charan Bhanj and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ori233
B.K. Patra, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Balasore upholding a decision of the Munsif of Balasore decreeing the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that they and not defendants 8 to 19 are the tenants under defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the disputed lands, for confirmation of their possession therein and for restraining defendants 8 to 19 from interfering with their possession and for damages. Defendant No. 1 is a deity represented by the marfatdar defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3 is the Endowment Commissioner and defendants 4 to 7 are trustees appointed by the Commissioner in respect of the deity. The case of the plaintiffs is that the ancestors of the defendants 8 to 19 had taken lease of the disputed lands from the marfatdar of the deity for a period of nine years commencing from 1327 Sal, that after expiry of the lease, the marfatdar took khas possession of the lands and cultivated the same till 1342 and thereafter leased out the la...
Secondary Board of Education Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward e
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-1972
Reported in: 38(1972)CLT148
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. The petitioner is the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa. For the accounting year 1967-68 the budget estimate of the Board was Rs, 43,15,61 and the revised estimate was Rs. 32,99,694. Annexure A is a print of the revised estimate for the year 1967-68 and budget estimate for the year 1968-69, Annexure B is the notice under sections 139(2) and 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 'G', Cuttack, to the petitioner asking it to file the return of income for the assessment year 1968-69. In compliance to the said notice the petitioner filed a return in the prescribed form showing its total income as nil. In Part IV of the said return receipts at Rs. 32,99,694 were shown ; but in the explanatory note (annexure C) the said receipts were claimed as being exempt from income-tax under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner appeared before the opposite party on several days to explain the position. Without being satisfied with th...
Secondary Board of Education, Orissa Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward e, C ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-1972
Reported in: [1972]86ITR408(Orissa)
G. K. MISRA C.J. - The petitioner is the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa. For the accounting year 1967-68 the budget estimate of the Board was Rs. 43,15,61 and the revised estimate was Rs. 32,99,694. Annexure A is a print of the revised estimate forth year 1967-68 and budget estimate for the year 1968-69. Annexure B is the notice under sections 139(2) and 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 'G' Cuttack, to the petitioner asking it to file the return of income for the assessment year 1968-69. In compliance to the said notice the petitioner filed a return in the prescribed from showing its total income as nil. In Part IV of the said return receipts at Rs. 32,99,694 were shown; but in the explanatory note (annexure C) the said receipts were claimed as being exempt from income-tax under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner appeared before the opposite party on several days to explain the opposition. Without being satisfied with the e...
Madanmohan Jena and ors. Vs. Srinath Samal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori22
B.K. Patra, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendants 1, 2 and 4 and arises out of a suit brought against them and defendant No. 5 for recovery of Rs. 7,500/- alleged to be due on a registered handnote dated 25-6-1949 executed in favour of the plaintiff by defendant No. 5 and his brother Krushna Chandra Jena. Krushna Chandra Jena is dead. Defendants 1 and 2 are alleged to be his sons and defendant No. 4 is his widow. In execution of a decree which the Raja of Aul had obtained aganist Krushna Chandra Jena and his brother Gananath Jena (defendant No. 5), he brought the latter's ancestral properties to sale and purchased them himself. Subsequently the two brothers negotiated with the Raja to get back the properties from him on payment of Rs. 3262/-. For executing the sale deed in their favour, they were to purchase stamp and for this and certain other needs of theirs, they had borrowed Rs. 938/- from the plaintiff in several instalments. Both the brothers executed in favour of the plaintiff a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »