Orissa Court July 1973 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.
Gobinda Sahoo Vs. Ram Chandra Nanda and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori36; 39(1973)CLT1233
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. Plaintiff's (Opp. Party No. 1's) suit is for redemption. It was filed on 31st of August, 1970. Plaintiff's case is that defendant No. 2 (Opp. Party No. 2) executed a registered possessory mortgage bond in favour of defendant No. 1 (Petitioner) in respect of the disputed property for a consideration of Rs. 280/- on 13-5-1965 and handed over possession of the same to defendant No. 1.The first defendant filed a written statement alleging in paragraph 4 that the disputed property was never delivered by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1 on the date of the mortgage and that defendant No. 2 is in possession even till now. His further case was that defendant No. 2 entered into an agreement for sale with him and took advance of Rs. 780/- in two instalments. On 12-10-1972 two petitions were filed by the first defendant for amendment of the written statement. He alleged that there was an agreement for sale executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 on 20th o...
Kusun Samal and ors. Vs. Banamali Roul and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori105
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. To appreciate the controversy facts may be stated in chronological order. Title Suit No. 191 of 1952 filed by 27 plaintiffs against 17 defendants was decreed on 13-8-1956. Title Appeal No. 154 of 1956 filed by the defendants against the judgment decreeing the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. Second Appeal No. 295 of 1959 filed by the defendants was allowed on 22-12-1961. During the pendency of the second appeal, on 23-4-1960 the plaintiffs took delivery of possession of the propertv as the defendants failed to offer security as ordered by the High Court. After their success in thesecond appeal the defendants filed Misc. Case No. 383 of 1962 under Section 144. Civil P. C. for restitution of Sch. A properties consisting of six acres of land and mesne profits of Rs. 22.764/- from 22nd of April. 1960 onwards. On 23-12-1965 the Misc. Case was allowed in favour of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 1966 in January, 1966. Madhu Khuntia (appellant No. 19) ...
Gouranga Charan Bhol Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ955
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. Late Uchhaba and Udaya-natih are brothers. Udayanath has two sons Nityananda (opp. party No. 1) and Gouranga (P. W. 1). Gouranga is the adopted son of Uchhaba. Pari Dei (P. W. 2) is the wife of Udayanath. Ichhamani (Opp. party No. 2) is the wife of Nityananda. Pitei (Opp. Party No. 3) is the mother of Ichhamani Prosecution case is that on 11th. of December, 1969 there was a quarrel between Nityananda and P.W. 2 over the removal of some bricks by Nityananda. In course of the Quarrel Nityananda assaulted his mother P.W. 2. P.W. 1 told Udayanath left had and the other on the head. P.W. 2 in his presence. Nitvananda came out from his house with a bamboo lathi and dealt two blows on P.W. 1 one on his left hand and the other on the head P.W. 1 fell down on the ground P.W. 8 intervened. Then Petei caught hold of P.W. 2 while Ichhamani dealt a blow on P.W. 2 by means of a spade. After medical examination P.W. 1 lodged information at Jagatsingpur police Station on 12-12-...
Baina Naik and anr. Vs. Dhruba Charan Naik and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori106; 39(1973)CLT939
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. Plaintiff No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 2. Plaintiff No. 2 died during the pendency of this Revision. Their case was that defendant No. I was not their adopted son and they had adopted one Budha, son of Banchha. The registered deed of adoption (Exhibit C) purported to be executed by them was genuine. The case of the first defendant was that he had been adopted by the plaintiffs. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that Budjia had been adopted by the plaintiffs, and that the first defendant was not adopted by them. The lower appellate Court reversed those findings and came to the conclusion that Budha was not the adopted son of the plaintiffs and that they had adopted the the first defendant. He however recorded a finding that the first defendant was more than fifteen vears old at the time of adoption. As such an adoption was contrary to law he remanded the case to give an opportunity to the first defendant to establish that there was a custom preval...
Brahma Naik Vs. Ram Kumar Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1973
Reported in: 39(1973)CLT934; 1974CriLJ567
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. The prosecution case is that the informant Brahma Naik was given possession of the disputed lands in a proceeding under Section 145. Cr. P. C., to which Ram Kumar Agarwalla, opposite party No. 1 was a party. Possession was given on 10-12-1968 and Brahma Naik continued in possession and raised paddy crops on that land. On 16-11-1969 accused Ram Kumar Agarwalla and ten other persons employed in the rice-mill came in a body and removed the paddy sheaves which had been cut and were about to be taken away by the petitioner and his men. causing grievous injuries by fracturing Brahma Naik's left wrist and other injuries to Nrupa Naik son of Brahma Naik. The defence of Ram Kumar Agarwalla was that the informant Brahma Naik was illegally cut-ting paddy from Ram Kumar's land and on his protest Brahma Naik left the place after creating some disturbance. The paddy was grown by Ram Kumar Agarwalla on his own land and accordingly he lodged protest when Brahma Naik tried to re...
Akhoy Kumar Mohapatra Vs. Balaram Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-24-1973
Reported in: 39(1973)CLT1062; 1974CriLJ722
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. These two cases were heard analogously with Cri. Revision No. 714 of 1972 and Cri. Misc. Case No. 227 of 1972 as they arise out of the same facts. The petitioner in these cases is the Sub-Divisional Officer of Deogarh who was arrayed as accused No. 21 in the complaint petition filed by the complainant Balaram Sahu (O. P. No. 1) in complaint Case No, ICC.12/72. Facts have been narrated in detail in Cri. Revision No. 714 of 1972, judgment in which has been pronounced today, and need not be repeated. The following allegations were made against the petitioner by the complainant in the complaint petition. They may be extracted.Para. 28. That under the direction, of accused No. 4 the police force armed with guns and lathis commenced marching from southern bank of Gohiri river. Accused Nos. 1, 2. 3, 4 and 21 went with them. It is subsequently learnt that the S. D. O. Deogarh (accused No. 21) remained in the Panchayat Bhaban and directed the boatman not to allow any per...
Harekrushna Patra Vs. Rekhamani Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori185; 39(1973)CLT944
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. This case is an illustration of the scandalous state of affairs prevailing in some of the subordinate courts. The facts narrated hereunder would speak for themselves. Money Suit No. 8 of 1964 was filed in 1964. After several adjournments the suit was decreed ex parte on 11-8-1967. On 30th of August, 1967 an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. was made which was registered as Misc. Case No. 53 of 1967. The Misc. case was allowed and the suit was restored to file. On 10th of January, 1969 the suit was decreed ex parte for the second time. Again an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. was made on 5-2-1969 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 10 of 1969. This misc. case was dismissed for default on 19-11-1970. Misc. Case No. 44 of 1970 was filed under Section 151, Civil P. C. for restoration of Misc. Case No. 10 of 1969. This misc. case was allowed and Misc. Case No. 10 of 1969 was restored to file on 20th of April, 1971. Again Misc. Case No...
P. Venugopal and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-1973
Reported in: 39(1973)CLT1093; [1974]33STC372(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari to quash an order made by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, in a miscellaneous proceeding before him rejecting the claim of relief under Rule 6-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer of Ganjam-I Circle and has been assigned Registration Number GAI 2760. He works as area stockist of Messrs. Geep Flashlight Industries of Allahabad for the districts of Sundergarh, Sambalpur, Bolangir, Kalahandi, Ganjam, Phulbani and Koraput. As area stockist, the petitioner is to make sales and supplies to different dealers and sellers in those districts. The petitioner applied to the Commissioner that in respect of all his business, he may be permitted to carry on his business in all those districts on the basis of the certificate of registration assigned to him in Ganjam-I Circle. The Commissioner has refused his prayer by saying:It appears that for the aforesaid seven districts the petitioner i...
Md. Abul Kalam Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ6Ori
K.B. Panda, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Nuasahi Chromite Mines belonging to opposite party No. 3, with effect from 10-7-1961. The terms of appointment were purely temporary for six months only, with a condition that opposite party No. 3 will have the right either to terminate or to reappoint the petitioner for any further period (annexure-1). The petitioner joined his duties and continued in service till 26-11-1970. Then he was holding the post of time-keeper. It is averred in the petition that during this span of his service period, there was no allegation of any negligence of duty on his part by the management (opposite party No. 3).2. The petitioner proceeded on leave for fifteen days from 10-11-1970 for which permission was accorded by the management (annexure 2). After that the petitioner joined his duties on 26-11-1970 at 7 A.M. as per his joining report (annexure 3). Abruptly, however, on 28.11-1970 he received an order of the Chief Labour Officer dated 2...
Achhuta Mallick Vs. Magu Mallick and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori183
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J. 1. The following genealogy as given in the plaint would show the relationship of the parties. PADI MALLICK | _________________|__________________ | | Kasi Bisi | | | Panu(Pro forma | Deftd.NO.7). _______________|_____________________________________ | | | Achhuta Dama Kanhu(Plaintiff) (adopted away) (died unmarried)The plaintiff's case is that the sale deed executed by Magu (defendant No. 1) in favour of defendants 2 to 6 is void. Defendants 2 to 6 filed a written statement alleging that the first defendant is the natural born son of Kanhu and validly executed thesale deed. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint on 3-11-1971 alleging that Magu (defendant No. 1) was the natural born son of Kanhu but had been adopted away to one Radhu Mallick of Sibapur on 3-3-1934 and there was a registered document dated 19-7-1955 acknowledging the adoption. This amendment was rejected by the learned Munsif saying that it changes the nature of the suit. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »