Orissa Court April 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.
Dharmananda Harijan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ori243; 38(1972)CLT498
Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a constable on 17-9-1962. He was made permanent after undergoing training in the Police Training College, Angul. By Annexure A dated 9-5-1964 the Superintendent of Police, Kalahandi, framed the following two charges against the petitioner.'1. He absented from duty from 12-2-1964 A.M. to 19-2-1964 A.M. without any leave or permission. 2. That he proceeded on four days C.L. with effect from 21-2-1964 P.M. and though he was warned against overstayal he overstayed C. L, by 3 days without leave or permission and returned to duty on 28-2-1964 P. M.'2. After regular enquiry the Superintendent of Police, Kalahandi, found the petitioner guilty and imposed the following penalty by his order (Annexure B) dated 10-7-1964:'The period of absence from 12-2-1964 to 18-2-1964 and 26-2-1964 to 28-2 1964 is treated as E. O. L. Since he has already suffered financial loss and mental agony I award him a lenient sentence i.e. a severe censure'.3. On 4-2-1966 the...
Suraj Prasad Sahu and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1972
Reported in: 38(1972)CLT506; 1972CriLJ1346
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. The petitioners stand convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and have been sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.2. On hearing the counsel for both the parties and on going through the judgments of the appellate and the trial Court and other relevant papers on record. I find that several illegalities and irregularities have been committed at the trial stage. The charge framed against the petitioners does not mention the particular order made under Section 3 of the Act which has been contravened so as to be punishable Under Section 7 of the Act. At the stage of examining the petitioners under Section 342 Criminal P.C. the trial Court, instead of personally examining the accused persons, examined only the Advocates who represented the accused persons in that Court and in convicting the petitioners, both the Courts have taken into consideration such statements made by the Ad...
Mir Abdul Sovan and ors. Vs. Rafikan Bibi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ori213
ORDERR.N. Misra, J. 1. Defendants 1. 2 and 3 are before this Court in an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. In Title Suit No. 85 of 1968 of the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore. an order was obtained on 31-8-1970 that plaintiff No. 1 may be examined before a commissioner on the ground that she was a very old lady unable to attend court at the time of trial. Several orders were passed by the court from time to time in the matter of her examination on Commission. Ultimately on 19-4-1971 the commissioner submitted his report along with the deposition of plaintiff No. 1. By order No. 60 dated 13-5-1971, the learned trial Judge directed:--'Heard. The suit has already been ready for hearing. This matter arises out of examination of witness on commission and hence it is desirable that the matter is to be disposed of along with main hearing of the suit......'On 9-9-1971, defendant No. 1 applied to the learned trial judge that orders may be passed in...
Kasi Rout Vs. Mahammad Saleh and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ori245; 38(1972)CLT532
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are the landlords. Opposite Party No. 1 died during the pendency of the writ application and his legal representatives have been substituted. Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 are the tenants under the landlords in respect of a house situate in Bhapur in the town of Berhampur.The case of the tenants is as follows. The house in question was let out to them in the year 1954 on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- which was subsequently raised to Rs. 60/-. The tenants with a view to start a hotel in the year in question made some alterations, additions and improvements with the consent of the landlords for which they had to incur expenses of Rs. 6,200/-. For the amounts so spent by them, deceased opposite party No. 1, executed a pronote for Rs. 1,200/-on 2-7-1954 in their favour and further agreed to deduct Rs. 10/- from the house rent every month towards the dues. The landlords had outstanding dues of Rupees 7,400/- payable to the tenants. They agreed...
Chowdhury G.C. Parida Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1972
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ529Ori
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. By Annexure 5 dated 23rd November, 1966, the District Labour Officer, Cuttack, addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, P.H.D., Cuttack-2, to pay Rs. 2,250.00 to opposite party No. 5 from the dues standing to the credit of the petitioner against the Executive Engineer (opposite party No. 4). This writ application has been filed to quash this order (Annexure 5), on the allegation that it has not been proved that opposite party No. 5 was a supervisor under the petitioner.2. The facts are : Opposite party No. 5 filed an application before the Labour Commissioner, Orissa (opposite party No. 2) stating that he was working as a supervisor of the petitioner, and the petitioner did not pay his dues to the tune of Rs. 2,250.00. This petition was forwarded by the Labour Commissioner to the District Labour Officer, Cuttack, (opposite party No. 3). The petitioner was called upon to file his written statement. He filed his written statement, but did not appear on the dates o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›