Orissa Court April 1973 Judgments
Madan Panda Vs. Hadibandhu Panda and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori110
S.K. Ray, J.1. This appeal is by defendant No, 2 from the order dated 17-7-1971 passed by the Subordinate Judge in the final decree proceedings whereby the application of one Hadibandhu Panda under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P. C. to be impleaded as a party in that proceeding as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. Surivamoni Dibya, has been allowed on the basis of a deed of gift executed by the said Surjyamoni Dibya in his favour, after holding the said deed of gift to be valid and genuine.2. The facts leading upto the present proceeding may now be briefly stated. Suriyamoni Dibya filed a partition suit (T.S. No. 84 of 1950) on 23-11-1950 against respondent No. 2 as defendant No. 1 and appellant as defendant No. 2. A preliminary decree was passed on 22-9-1951. An appeal from this decree was carried to this Court by Respondent No. 1 in F. A. No. 6 of 1952 which was ultimately dismissed. Thereafter. Surjyamoni started final decree proceeding. During its pendency, a joint pe...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu Charan SwaIn Vs. Secretary, Works and Transport Department and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori115
Panda, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash a proposed action conveyed in Letter No. 17165 dated 31-7-1970 (Annexure 8) issued by the Secretary to the Government, Works and Transport Department, to the Chief Engineer, projects (Express Highway) suggesting leasing out of the road-side lands to the Express Highway No. 1 for agricultural and piscicultural purposes temporarily on annual basis to landless Harijans, preference being given to the Fishery Co-operative Societies of the landless Harijans.2. Facts leading to the above petition are as follows: Fortyfour decimals of land lying in village Saintipur belonging to petitioner Bishnu Charan Swain of village Padmalavpur, who is a non-Harijan, was acquired for the construction of the express Highway from Daitari to Paradip. Out of this land. 32 decimals appertain to Khata 12 and the balance to Khata 16. There was due notification for acquisition and there is no challenge that the compensat...
Tag this Judgment!Paramananda Nayak and ors. Vs. the State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC411(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. These are five separate writ applications on behalf of five different betel leaf dealers of the district of Ganjam. Each of the petitioners has been subjected to tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Act). In respect of some of these petitioners, assessments have become final, while in regard to others, after assessments were made appeals had been filed and at the time the writ petition was filed either first appeals before the Assistant Commissioner or second appeals before the Tribunal under the Orissa Act were pending disposal. At the instance of the parties, these writ applications have been heard together as common questions of fact and law arise. In fact, there was only a single hearing in respect of all these cases as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties.2. When the writ applications were heard, a preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of these petitions on the ground that the petitioners wer...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sarojini Pradhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori44; 39(1973)CLT713
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Central Government dated 19-5-1971 rejecting the revision under the Mineral Concession Rules of 1960 filed by the petitioner and for a writ of mandamus for issuing a prospecting licence for manganese and iron Ores to the petitioner in respect of 155 acres of land in the district of Keonjhar.2. On 17-5-1965, the petitioner had applied in the prescribed form under Rule 9 (1) of the Mineral Concession Rules of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to the opp. pARTY No. 2 -- State through the Collector of Keonihar for the grant of a prospecting licence for iron and manganese ores in respect of the area referred to above. As no orders were passed and communicated to the petitioner on the said application within nine months from the making of it, the petitioner filed a revision under Rule 54 of the Rules before the Central Government on 12-4-1966 against the deemed rejection of her application. O...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman Notified Area Council and anr. Vs. Kudini Lingaraju Patra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori17; 39(1973)CLT641
ORDERS.K. Ray, J. 1. This application is by the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated 27-4-1972 of the Munsif. Bhanjanagar passed in T. S). No. 20 of 1969 refusing their prayer for recalling the witnesses examined in chief on behalf of the defendant for the purpose of cross-examination.2. The facts leading upto the impugned order under revision may now be briefly stated. The petitioners filed T. S. No. 20/69 against the opposite party for eviction. After closure of the evidence from their side, the suit was posted to 10-4-1972 for examination of the defence witnesses. That was a morning Court day. The defendant began leading evidence from his side during the first hour of that day. He examined 3 PL Ws. and exhibited 4 documents and closed his evidence. Those D. Ws. were examined in chief but could not be cross-examined as the plaintiff's lawyer was not present at that time. As soon as the defence evidence closed, the plaintiff No. 1 filed a petition at 8.30 A. M. for time ...
Tag this Judgment!Nidhi SwaIn and ors. Vs. Khati Dibya and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori70; 39(1973)CLT646
R.N. Misra, J.1. The defendants in a suit for partition are the appellants and the appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge at Nayagarh. The relationship of the members of the family appears from the genealogy below: Bira Swain(died in 1933) | __________________|___________________ | | | Nidhi Swain(D.1) Narasingha Parikhit(D-2) | (died on 1-12-49) | =widow Khati Dibya | (Plaintiff) _______|___________________________________________________________ | | | |Raghunath (D.3) Gangadhar(D.4) Biswanath(D.5) Kulamanl(D.6) |Rajkishore(D.7). It was alleged by the plaintiff that Bira and his sons constituted a joint family. The 'A' schedule properties were ancestral having been recorded in the settlement of 1932-33 of the Nayagarh State in Bira's name. Bira died soon after the settlement. Defendants 1 and 2 and the deceased husband of the plaintiff with the aid of the joint family nucleus and their own labour acquired the 'B' Schedule Property. As defe...
Tag this Judgment!Jagabandhu Senapati and ors. Vs. Bhagu Senapati and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori120
G.K. Misra. C.J.1. The following genealogy as appended to the plaint would show the relationship amongst the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 and defenants 4 to 8. Kapil Senapati _________________|_________________ | | | Dinabandhu Minei | | Hari-Puni Bewa(d.3) _________|_____________ | | | _______________|___________________ Banchu(D.4) Kelu | | | | |Jagabandhu D-1 Bhagu Panohu | ________|_______(Sita Dei)Wife (Pltff) (D-2) | | | | Bishnu(D.4) Anam(D.5) _________________|_________________________ | | | Indramani D-6 Chandramani D-7 Krushna D-8 Dinabhandhu and Minei were brothers. Punj Bewa (D-3) is the widow of Hari, Defendant 1, plaintiff and defendant 2 are the sons of defendant 3. Defendants 4 to 8 belong to the branch of Minei. Admittedly the Branches of Dinabandhu and Minei are separate in status.Plaintiff filed the suit for partition claiming one-sixth share in Schedule B properties consisting of 15.29 acres asserting that they are the joint properties of the two branches of Dinaba...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: [1982]51STC333(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. These references have been made under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the following three questions have been referred to this Court:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in remanding the case for reassessment when he held that there was one sale by the forest contractor or the Forest Corporation to the Divisional Forest Officers under the Orissa Sales Tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in not considering the fact of the credit sales effected by the opponents and their non-inclusion in the turnover of the relevant period ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the opponents could not be assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the sales effected in the course of inter-State trade and commerce ?2. The short facts as appear from a connected reference which the counsel for both sides wanted us to adopt for these c...
Tag this Judgment!Jadunath Naik and ors. Vs. Bipra Charan Naik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori145; 39(1973)CLT755
S.K. Ray, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. This appeal is from the partly reversing decision of the learned lower appellate Court in a suit for partition. The sole grievance in this appeal is directed against that portion of the judgment of the lower appellate Court in which the entire house, standing on plot No. 4028, has been directed to be allotted tq the share of the plaintiffs, compensating the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for the loss in their shares in the house site by such allotment.2. The plaintiffs and defendants are members of the same family. The following genealogy will show their relationship : ANANTA NAIK | __________________________|_________________________ | | | Chintamani Fakir Labanya(D.2) JOgi | | | Bipracharan(Plaintiff) | | | | __________________|__________________ | | | | Padu(Deceased) Jadu(D.1)| | _____________________________________________________|__________ | | | |Madhu(D.1) Kanhu (D.4) Laxamidhar(D.5) Krupasindhu(D.6)3. The suit property which is the s...
Tag this Judgment!Tulugu Soura Alias Tumbugu Soura Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-1973
Reported in: 39(1973)CLT559; 1973CriLJ1426
S. Acharya, J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced thereunder to undergo R. I. for life. He is also convicted under Section 201, IPC but no separate sentence has been awarded against him on this count.2. The alleged occurrence took place in the year 1952. The accused was arrested in connection with the case in December, 1969, and after commitment he was tried for charges under Sections 302 and 201, IPC in the Court below, and is convicted and sentenced as stated above.3. The prosecution case is that on 9-1-1952 Hadia Soura, the deceased, drank the Salap liquor belonging to the accused. The accused therefore assaulted Hadia with an axe in the forest, as a result of which he died at the spot soon thereafter. After the death of Hadia, the accused took the dead-body to a crevice in the near about hillock with the assistance of P. Ws. 5 and 6 who 1427 were working in their own fields in the vicinity. After placing the deadbody in the crevice, the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »