Orissa Court August 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.
Dibakar Mohanty Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori51; 39(1973)CLT1100
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner and the OPP. parties Nos. 4 and 5 are the plaintiffs. they filed Suit No. 176 of 1962 on 3-8-1962 against opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3, the Collector, Cuttack. the Sub-Divisional Officer. Cuttack and the Tahasildar. Khasmahal, Cuttack. The suit was for permanent injunction on the allegation that the plaintiffs have perfected their title by adverse possession from the time of their forefathers. In paragraph 2 of the plaint the following averment was made:--'This piece of land has been in exclusive and undisturbed possession of theplaintiffs' family since the time of the plaintiff's ancestors. The ancestors of the plaintiffs were holding their shops in this piece of land were earning their livelihood and after them, these plaintiffs have continued to hold those shops till this day.' A little more than ten years after the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. the following amendment was prayed fo...
State of Orissa Vs. Balaram Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori114; 39(1973)CLT1091
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J. 1. Shri K.N. Das, under Secretary, Industries Department (defendant No. 3) was cross-examined in Dart as D. W. 2 on 7-7-1972. The case had been adjourned to 17-8-1972. That day he reached Court sometime after 12.30 p. m. The learned Munsif passed an order on that day to the following effect: 'It is 12.30 p.m. The witness K.N. Das is also found absent on calls. As the witness is not present for cross-examination by the plaintiff, his evidence is expunged from record. There is no hazira of any other witness. Evidence closed. To 22-8-3972 for argument in the suit' Later the Government pleader filed an application to give the State an opportunity of examining D. W. 2 so that he would be cross-examined. This was just about 12.30 p. m. after the order of the day had already been passed. The learned Munsif rejected that application saving that it did not disclose sufficient ground as to why the witness could not appear till 12.30 p.m. 2. While it is true that Courts shou...
Gani Mallik and anr. Vs. Nakul Charan Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ216
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. Complainant's case is that the disputed land was in his possession he sowed paddy; there were paddy seedlings on the land and the petitioners went upon the land with ploughs and other weapons on 22nd of May, 1971 at about 11 a.m. and damaged the paddy plants causing loss of about Rs. 100/- to the opposite party. The defence was that the disputed land was in possession of the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is father and petitioners 2 and 3 are his sons. A number of documents were exhibited on either side. Prosecution examined six witnesses. The learned Magistrate in a fairly well considered judgment discussed the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the opposite party was in possession of the disputed land from 1955 onwards and on the date of occurrence the petitioners forcibly entered into the land and destroyed the paddy seedlings.2. Mr. A. K. Rao very strenuously contended that the disputed land was recorded in the name of the father of petitioner No...
L. Dharma Sahu and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-08-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Ori287; 39(1973)CLT1237
ORDERR.N. Misra, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial), Ganjam, recommending the quashing of a conviction under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The three petitioners happen to be the owner, driver and conductor of a stage carriage bearing registration number ORG 2561. During mobile Court checking it transpired that the vehicle did not have a direction indicator. Accordingly they were proceeded against for contravention of Rule 124 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, contravention whereof is punishable under Section 112 of the Act. The driver and the conductor having admitted their guilt were convicted and fined Rs. 20/- each. The proceeding. however, continued against the owner as he was not present at the time of detection and he was proceeded in Court.3. Against the continuance of the proceeding, the owner applied to the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) to make a reference to the Court on th...
Sankali Dehuri and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-08-1973
Reported in: 39(1973)CLT1096; 1974CriLJ219
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. On 8th April, 1972 a proceeding under Section 107, Cr. P. C. was initiated by the Subdivisional Officer, Talcher, against 87 persons of village Olanda including the petitioners on a report submitted by the Officer-in-charge of Kanhia P. S. They were made second party in the report and four persons of village Denali were made the first party. The Offlcer-in-charge recommended that a proceeding under Section 107, Cr .P. C. is to be taken only against the villagers of Olanda as they threatened to harass the villagers of Denali if the latter entered Chingudinali jungle of Olanda village and a portion of Gudianali jungle which the villagers of Olanda claimed to be a part of Chingudinali jungle for grazing or cutting fuel. Notices were issued under Section 112, Cr. P. C. against the villagers of Olanda to show cause. The case of the villagers of Olanda is that they have exclusive right of user of Chingudinali jungle for grazing and other purposes and the villagers of ...
Raghbir Singh Gill Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ori103; 39(1973)CLT1003
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. Relevant facts arising in connection with the grant of ad interim ex parte stay may only be stated.The R.T.O., Balasore asked the applicant to produce the vehicle On 23-7-1973, At about 10 a.m. a 1973 model vehicle worth about Rs. 1 lakh was produced before the R.T.O. The vehicle Was found to be according to specification and the route permit was about to issue when at about 12.30 p.m. of that day the stay order was received from the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ore-sided over by Sri M.J. Rao, a District Judge. The stay order was granted in an appeal filed by the opposite party No. 3 on 21-7-1973. The Member, Tribunal dispensed with notice and granted the ad Interim ex parte injunction. On 21-7-1973 Counsel on behalf of the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal to vacate stay. The opposite party No. 3 filed a counter on 27-7-1973 and the matter was heard at length on that day. The Tribunal by his order dated 30-7-1973 came to the conclusion that t...
Gaffar Kassam Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC98(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has been assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the quarters ending 30th June, 1966, 31st December, 1966, 31st March, 1967, for the year 1967-68 and for the year 1968-69 by the Sales Tax Officer, Koraput II Circle, at Rayagada (opposite party No. 2). The assessments are challenged in appeals which are still pending disposal. For non-payment of tax demanded from the petitioner, penalty proceedings were initiated under Rule 16(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules (hereinafter called the 'Rules') and for all the periods referred to above, penalties have been imposed. In this writ application, the petitioner disputes the authority of the Sales Tax Officer to impose penalty.2. It is contended for the petitioner that in the absence of a clear provision in the Act, there could be no levy of penalty in terms of the Rules. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has contended that Rule 16(2) of the Rul...
Nestle's Products (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC356(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution asking for a writ of certiorari to quash orders of assessment made under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (briefly referred to as the 'Act' hereafter) for three years, namely, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessing officer (opposite party No. 2) has assessed the petitioner under Section 12(5) of the Act, the petitioner being an unregistered dealer, and has raised the demand of tax for all the three years and penalty for the last two of the three years. The assessee had carried appeals under the Act, but Mr. Mohanty undertook to withdraw the same when objection was raised regarding maintainability of this petition during the pendency of the appeals. Mr. Mohanty assured us that steps have been taken to withdraw the appeals.2. The assessee is a public limited company and has its registered office in India at New Delhi. For business convenience it has a branch at Calcutta. Under annexure-1, a document dated...
Prem Ratan Mal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ganjam Range a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1973
Reported in: 39(1973)CLT1025; [1974]33STC316(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and is a dealer in petrol, high speed diesel and light diesel products and kerosene oil. It receives supplies from the Indian Oil Corporation and has been registered as a wholesale distributor under the Orissa Motor Spirit (Taxation on Sales) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A certificate of registration under Section 7 of the Act had been granted to it. On 16th June, 1970, an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer attached to the Intelligence Wing at Berhampur (opposite party No. 4) visited the petrol station. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that both the partners were absent at the relevant time and a watchman was in actual charge at the spot. A younger brother of the partners was in the office close-by. It is alleged that opposite party No. 4 was allowed to enter into the premises and inspect the books of accounts in the manner he liked; yet a report was made by opposite party No...
Orissa Road Transport Company Limited Vs. Lalmohan Majhi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ49Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa dated 30th of March, 1971.2. The petitioner is the employer and opposite party No. 1 was employed formerly as an assistant under the company. By order dated 5th of August, 1969, the general manager of the petitioner-company terminated the services of the opposite part No. 1 with immediate effect. Thereupon opposite party No. 1 applied under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Tribunal claiming that the order of termination was illegal, and without obtaining previous approval or permission of the Tribunal it could not have been made, in view of the fact that Industrial Dispute Case No. 40 of 1966 between the management and the workmen relating to introduction of gratuity scheme was pending adjudication, It was further alleged that the termination was an act of victimisation as opposite party No. 1 was a member of the union executive.3. The petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »