Orissa Court April 1975 Judgments
Purusottam Pani Vs. Dhruba Charan Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-29-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ori8
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J. 1. Opposite party No. 3 filed a suit on a promissory note for recovery of dues against opposite parties 1 and 2. The rice huller machine belonging to opposite parties 1 and 2 was attached before judgment. On 1-4-1971 the Civil Court peon after attachment left the huller in charge of the petitioner who executed a receipt on that day wherein he stated that the rice huller was kept in his custody by the peon and he gave an undertaking that he would produce the huller as and when orders would be issued by the court. In the recitals of the undertaking so given there was no personal liability taken by the petitioner. The undertaking was not in favour of the Presiding Officer or any other officer of the Court. It was an under-faking in favour of the Court. On 1-3-1974 opposite parties 1 and 2 filed an application in Court that the petitioner should be directed to nay Rs. 2100/- towards electric charges and Rs. 5500/- towards profits which he gained by the running of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Padmalochan Panda Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ori239
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. In Arbitration Case No. 94 of 1962 pending before the Arbitrator, Hirakud Land Organisation, Sambalpur (hereinafter to be referred to as the Arbitrator) the following order was passed on 10-5-1965:--'Accordingly the claim made by the O. P. 2(a) appears to be a reasonable claim. I thus hold that the O. P. 2(a) should get as compensation for the acquired raiyati land a sum equal to the money value of 16 times the net annual yield of the acquired land. In the absence of any evidence from either side about the actual yield of the land, I leave the actual work of calculating the net yield of the land to be done by the L. A. O. on the basis of the results of crop cutting experiments as recorded in the Hamid Settlement Report.'On 19-9-1970 the Land Acquisition officer made the calculation and determined that payments would be made at the rate of Rs. 6.40 per maund of paddy. The amount payable thus came to Rs. 3676.51. Payment of this amount was accepted by the appellant on ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeb Dash Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ori234
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. The petitioner was working as a Development officer under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter to be referred to as the L. I. C.). On 21-10-1965 certain charges were framed against him under Annexure 1 in a disciplinary proceeding. By Annexure 2 dated 8-11-1965 the petitioner filed his written statement. Enquiry was entrusted to the Assistant Divisional Manager, Cuttack who submitted his report Annexure 6 on 21-11-1966. The Disciplinary Authority (Zonal Manager, Calcutta) issued the second show-cause notice Annexure 3 on 7-7-1967 asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. By Annexure 7 dated 11-8-1967 the petitioner showed cause. By Annexure 8 dated 6-1-1968 the petitioner was dismissed from service. On 5-2-1968 he filed a petition of appeal (Annexure 9) to the Managing Director who rejected the same by his order Annexure 11 on 18-3-1968. A memorial to the Chairman, L. I. C. was rejected under Annexure 13 on 26-8...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Patro Vs. Narasingha Patro and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ori12
S. Acharya, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-decree holder in Title Suit No. 8 of 1960. In Second Appeal No. 315 of 1963 arising out of the said suit it was found that the suit house was the self-acquired property of late Linga Patra, the husband of plaintiff No. 1, but it had been built on a portion of the joint family property belonging to Linga and defendants 1 and 2. On that finding this court ordered that the decree-holder would recover possession of the suit house along with the suit site on which it was constructed on paying compensation to the defendants for having constructed the said house on a portion of the joint family property. The suit was remanded to the trial court to appoint acommissioner to demarcate the site on which the house had been constructed and to assess the valuation of the said site. The trial court was directed that after the aforesaid demarcation and valuation of the suit site, it would give direction for the payment of compensation by the decree-...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jagadish Mitter Vs. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Divis ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR689(Orissa)
N.K. Das, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to strike down Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as ultra vires the Constitution and to quash the proceeding for recovery of the income-tax dues. 2. The case of the petitioner may be stated as follows : The petitioner purchased some stock-in-trade on July 1, 1963, from M/s. Hunsraj & Brothers which is a defunct firm. On March 29, 1968, he was assessed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act'), to the tune of Rs. 38,454 for the assessment year 1963-64, as the successor of M/s. Hunsraj & Brothers. The demand notice, assessment order, etc., were not served on M/s. Hunsraj & Brothers. Proceeding for recovery of dues was started by the Tax Recovery Officer of Nawarang-pur against the petitioner. He appeared before the Tax Recovery Officer and objected that he was not the successor and was not liable to pay the tax. On January 28, 1969, the objection of th...
Tag this Judgment!Magulu Jal and ors. Vs. Bhagaban Rai and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ori219
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The case of the plaintiff may be stated in short. Schedules A, B and C of the plaint constitute the disputed lands. A and B Schedules are Bhorga lands. They were a part of holding No. 1 of the 3rd settlement (1927) in the ex-State of Sonepur. Schedule A and B lands respectively comprise 3.21 acres and 15.52 acres. Schedule C lands were in holding No. 48 of the 3rd settlement and were raiyati lands with an area of 39.84 acres. All the three schedule lands were recorded in the name of Jaisingh Rai, father of the plaintiffs, in the 3rd settlement.Schedule A and B lands were converted into rayati by order (Ext. N) of the Collector. Bolangir, on 16-12-1962 in Bhogra Conversion Proceedings in respect of village Siali in which the suit lands are situated. Jaisingh Rai died on 16-11-1954. Till his death he was in peaceful physical possession of the disputed lands in his own right, title and interest. After his death plaintiffs inherited the properties and were in possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshna Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ori201
P.K. Mohanti, J. 1. The petitioner is the Secretary of the Managing Committee of Majhiakhanda M. E. School in the Educational District of Nayagarh. He challenges the action of Opposite Parties in withholding the grant in aid for the school for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73. 2. The case of the petitioner is that though the school was receiving grant in aid regularly from its inception, the District Inspector of Schools (Opposite Party No. 3) has not released the same for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 on account of some disputes between the petitioner and the opposite parties. It is alleged that at the instance of the ruling party in the Government, a new Managing Committee for the school was constituted. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the constitution of the new committee in O. J. C. No. 730 of 1970 and was successful. It is out of that grudge that payment of the grant in aid was stopped. The petitioner prays for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Opposite Part...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Suruji Dei and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ938
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Keonjhar acquitting both the respondents of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34, Indian Penal Code.2. Prosecution case was that on 27-4-1971 the respondents committed the murder of a tiny boy named Bimbadhar aged about 2j years and threw his body into a pond with the common intention of causing disappearance of the evidence of murder. The incident took place iat the house of P .W, 4 Govinda Sahu at village Mudulipada under Anandapur police station in the district of Keonjhar.3. The deceased is the daughter's son of P.W. 4. He belonged to village Baniari which is adjacent to village Mudulipada. On the date of occurrence he had come with his father (P.W. 3) to the house of P.W. 4. P.W. 3 went to a market leaving the boy incharRe of his mother-in-law Panchali (P.W. 6). After some time Panchali went to the paddy field carrying meal for her...
Tag this Judgment!Gundi Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1392
S. Acharya, J.1. This is a petition under Section 407(1)(c) of the new Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 by which it is prayed that the G. R. Case No. 215 of 1972 now pending in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda be committed to the Court of Session, Puri as this case is only a counter-case of the Sessions Trial No. 37 of 1973 now pending before the said Sessions Court.2. Mr. Bohidar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that in the interest of justice and for the general convenience of the parties and the witnesses the abovementioned case pending before the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda should be committed to the Court of Session, so that both the cases can be tried by one and the same Judge and can be properly adjudicated and disposed of by the same court.3. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Government Advocate appearing for opposite party No. 1 in this case, contends that this application is not maintainable in view of the fact that an application...
Tag this Judgment!H. Mohammad Sikandar Vs. Badrunissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ori130
Das, J.1. Opposite party No. 1 is the landlady of the house situated in Oriya Bazar in Cuttack City. Petitioner is the monthly tenant thereof. Opposite party No. 1 filed a petition under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the petitioner on three grounds: (a) husband of opposite party No. 1 who is a practising lawyer in Puri town wants to shift his practice to Cuttack and as such the house is to be remodelled and made fit for occupation; (b) the house has been sub-let by the petitioner without consent of opposite party No. 1; and (c) according to the terms of the oral agreement which was entered into by the parties, petitioner was to effect necessary annual thatching and incidental repair to the suit premises, but without effecting any such repair or thatching he had deducted the amount from the monthly rent payable by him and thereby has caused acts of damage which has materially impaired the value of the house. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »