Orissa Court August 1976 Judgments
Sitaram Thirani Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-31-1976
Reported in: 42(1976)CLT1084; 1977CriLJ681
ORDERR.N. Misra, J.1. petitioner is a retail grocer near the bus stand at Sundergarh town. On 11-11-1974, the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) made a statutory purchase of til oil from him after serving notice under Ext. l. He obtained a receipt in evidence of the sale under Ext. 2 and as he suspected adulteration, he got it analysed by the Public Analyst. Ext, 3 is the report of the Public Analyst showing that the sample til oil was adulterated. He obtained sanction under Ext. 4 and petitioner was prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The defence of the petitioner was that he was not selling til oil as food but only for the purposes of massaging on the body. When P.W. 1 asked for purchase of til oil he told him that he had til oil meant for massage.3. Prosecution examined three witnesses in all - P.W. 1 is the Food Inspector, P.W. 2 is the Sanitary Inspector while P.W. 3 is a peon attached to the office of P.W. 1....
Tag this Judgment!Sidha Sahoo and ors. Vs. Jhuma Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori45; 42(1976)CLT1168
R.N. Misra, J.1. Defendants 1 and 4 to 8 are in appeal against the decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack in a suit for partition.2. The genealogy given below shows the relationship of parties inter se:-- RAMA SAHU | _____________________|__________________________________ | | Panu Sidha widow Haramani (D.3) ____________|____________________________________________________ | | | | | Jhuma Suma Jema Bhagwan Bauribandhu (P.1) (P.2) (P.3) (D.2) (dead) widow Jubsti (D-4) Plaintiffs are daughters of Panu. They claimed one anna share in the B Schedule properties on the footing that they constituted joint family assets and four annas share in the C Schedule properties on the basis that those properties were self-acquired assets of Panu and Sidhu. The extent of B Schedule property is 4.60 acres while that of C Schedule property is Ac. 10.29.4.3. Defendants 1 and 4 to 8 (5 to 8 being transferees from defendant No. 4) resisted plaintiffs' claim on the stand that Panu died ...
Tag this Judgment!Nityananda Sahu Vs. Postmaster General and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori48; 42(1976)CLT1049
R.N. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff has carried this second appeal against the confirming judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge of Cuttack in a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- by way of damages.2. Plaintiff claims that he is a renowned businessman of Cuttack and was subscriber of a telephone bearing No. CK 431 which had also an extension being CK 431-A. He had been regularly clearing the bills issued by the Department against these telephone connections. On 8-9-1965, the telephones were disconnected on the plea of non-payment of telephone bills. When the plaintiff enquired, he was served with a demand note for a sum of about Rs. 1,400/-. Plaintiff disputed the correctness of the demand and ultimately a corrected demand note for a sum of Rs. 795.80 paise was given to him. This amount plaintiff paid on 31-5-1966 under receipt No. 9887 and asked for restoration of the connections. The Postmaster General (defendant No. 1) directed restoration of connection, but in spite of h...
Tag this Judgment!Jagamohan Sahu and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-18-1976
Reported in: 42(1976)CLT1206; 1977CriLJ1394
ORDERB.K. Roy, J.1. The petitioners in these two revisions along with one Alii Kishore Patnaik were tried in G. R. Case No. 356 of 1974 by Shri P. Kar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Berhampur for offences under Rule 43(5) of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules (hereinafter called the 'Rules'), Under Sections 145, 151, 224 and 332, Indian Penal Code and Under Section 32 of the Police Act. The trial Court found all the accused persons guilty under Rule 43(5) of the Rules, Under Sections 145 and 151, Indian Penal Code and Under Section 32 of the Police Act, convicted them thereunder and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to simple imprisonment for ten days for each of the offences under Rule 43(5) of the Rules, Under Section 145, Indian Penal Code and Under Section 32 of the Police Act. No separate sentence was passed for the offence Under Section 151, Indian Penal Code. All tfie accused persons were, however, acquitted of the charges Under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Belpahar Refractories Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR667(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J. 1. On applications of the revenue made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') the Tncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, has stated these cases and referred the following questions for the opinion of the court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was justified in deleting- Rs. 3,08,012.(in assessment year 1962-63) Rs. 5,57,658 (in assessment year 1963-64) Rs. 5,79,336 (in assessment year 1964-65) Rs. 3,57,681 (in assessment year 1965-66) and Rs. 5,87,729 (in assessment year 1966-67) on the ground that the said capital expenditures were converted into revenue expenditures and if the said deletions were legal ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that it was not a case of sharing the net profit, but, on the other hand, it was a case of remuneration for specific services rendered ' 2. In regard to the assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu Charan Das Vs. Dhani Biswal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-13-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori68; 42(1976)CLT1057
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. This is a revisional application filed under Section 115, Civil P. C. against an order of the Munsif, Second Court, Cuttack refusing to amend the khata No. of the suit land in the schedule of property appended to the decree.2. The following few facts need mention:The plaintiff-petitioner filed Title Suit No. 200 of 1970 for declaration of title and for other consequential reliefs. In the original plaint the suit land was wrongly described as appertaining to Khata No. 249. When the mistake was detected, an application was filed for correction of the Khata number as 949 by way of amendment of the plaint. No objection having been raised by the defendant-opposite partita the prayer for amendment was allowed on 14-12-1970 and the plaintiff was directed to file an amended copy of the plaint by 23-12-1970. No amended copy of the plaint was filed by the plaintiff but an endorsement 'see amendment petition' was made in red ink on the last page of the plaint. Although no ...
Tag this Judgment!Biswanath Bhukta Vs. Executive Officer, Talcher Municipality and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori1; 42(1976)CLT1097
R.N. Misra, J.1. Jajangi Hat is a municipal market located within the Talcher Municipal area in the district of Dhenkanal. The Executive Officer of the said Municipality settled the said market on licence basis with the petitioner for the years 1965-66 and 1967-68. Petitioner having failed to pay up the dues, the Certificate Officer of Talcher instituted certificate case No. 29 of 1969-70 for the recovery of the outstanding sum. Petitioner challenged the tenability of the certificate proceeding on several grounds, but the Certificate Officer overruled the same. Petitioner carried an appeal to the Collector of Dhenkanal and being unsuccessful moved the Revenue Divisional Commissioner at Sambalpur in revision and having failed before that authority moved the Member, Board of Revenue, in a further revision who also dismissed his revision petition. This writ application has thereafter been filed asking for a writ of certiorari for quashing of the certificate proceeding.2. Though several co...
Tag this Judgment!Nityananda Pandey and ors. Vs. Manohar Pandey and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori10; 42(1976)CLT1023
R.N. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed a Title Suit asking for recovery of possession of certain lands and mesne profits of Rs. 920 during the pendency of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the lands were attached and placed in charge of a receiver. He valued the relief for recovery of possession at Rs. 142.65 on the basis of fifteen times of the annual revenue under Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act. Defendants did not dispute the calculation of the court-fees payable on the plaint, but challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit by contending that the market value of the lands was more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif. On this plea, Issue No. 9 was raised to the effect:--'Whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?'The learned Additional Munsif held, relying on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gopala Padhano v. Ganesh Padhy, 1LR (1963) Cut 13 = ...
Tag this Judgment!indramani Bedbagis Vs. Hema Dibya and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori88
S. Acharya, J. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 has preferred this appeal against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Cuttack In Title Appeal No. 44/72 reversing the decision of the First Munsif, Cuttack in Title Suit No. 104/56.2. Plaintiff No. 2 has been impleaded as pro forma respondent No. 3 in this appeal.3. The admitted genealogical tree is given below:-- GADHADHAR BEDBAGIS _____________________|________________________ | | Upendra Dinabandhu _______|____________ | | | Narasingha alias Nilamani Indramani Garudadhwaja (dead) (Plff.1) (adopted son) | Parsuram (Plff.2) 4. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for a declaration that they, being related to Narasingha alias Garudadhwaja Bedbagis in the manner as shown in the abovementioned genealogical table, are the only legal heirs and successors of the said Narasingha who died in the year 1962. The plaintiffs state that defendant No. 1, Hema Dei (respondent No. 1 herein), is a stranger to the family and was not the legally married wife o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›