Orissa Court December 1977 Judgments
T. Venkat Sitaram Rao and anr. Vs. T. Kamakshiamma and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori145; 45(1978)CLT323
S. Acharya, J. 1. Defendants 2 and 3 have preferred this appeal against the decision of the court below confirming that of the trial court.2. The plaintiff's suit is for partition and allotment of her 1/4th share of the suit property and for other consequential reliefs.3. One Telikicharia Narasimha Murty had 2 sons and 2 daughters. Defendants 1 and 2 are his two sons and the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 are his two daughters. The said Narasimha Murty died on 21-12-61 leaving behind him the suit properties. The above-mentioned facts are not disputed.4. The plaintiff's case, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the said Narasimha Murty did not have sufficient income to acquire the suit properties and that those properties were acquired by Mm by selling his ancestral properties in Srikakulam district of Andhra Pradesh. After the death of Narasimha Murty, defendants 1 and 2 possessed the suit properties without allowing the plaintiff any share in the same though she is entitled to a shar...
Tag this Judgment!Dukhi Dibya and ors. Vs. Landi Dibya and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori182; 45(1978)CLT409
R.N. Misra, J.1. Defendants have carried this appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Puri in a suit for partition.2. Parties are related in the manner indicated below:-- X _______________________________|______________________________ | | | Bhagaban Michhu Hadibandhu | _______________|__________ | Padmanav | | Balf widow Bholi Basu widow Landi (D.1) | Suna (P.1) (died) Nidhi (D.2) | during | Banadhihari suit) Kasinath widow widow (D.2 ka) Hema Dukhi (P.2) (D.1) | Brundaban (D.1 ka)Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the properties in the hotchpot alleging that there had been no partition among the three branches of which the common ancestors were Bhagaban, Michhu and Hadibandhu. With the aid and assistance of joint family nucleus several acquisitions were made and such properties have also been included in the hotchpot for partition on the footing that they were impressed with joint family character. The kha schedule propert...
Tag this Judgment!Bichitrananda Nayak Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-19-1977
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT369; 1978CriLJ1050
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of one month.2. The petitioner owns a grocery shop at Choudwar. The Food Inspector (P. W. 1) inspected his shop on 4-10-74 at about 3 p.m. and found 7 Kgs. of mustard oil stored for sale. He took samples of the oil after complying with the formalities. One of the samples was handed over to the petitioner and another was sent to the Public Analyst on 7-10-74 and the third sample was retained by the Food Inspector. In his report dated 31-7-74 (sic) the Public Analyst certified that the sample was adulterated. On the basis of his opinion, prosecution was launched after necessary sanction by the Chief District Medical Officer, The sample which had been made over to the petitioner was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory through ...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanashyam Das Vs. Cuttack Municipality
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-19-1977
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT343; 1978CriLJ1310
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. This criminal revision has been filed under the following circumstances : The opposite party launched prosecution against the petitioner under Section 385-A of the Orissa Municipal Act for unauthorised construction of a pucca building. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and contended that he constructed the house on old foundation which was existing there prior to his purchase.2. The trial court by its judgment dated 24-11-64 held the petitioner guilty under Section 385-A of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with a default sentence of S. I. for five months and also to pay a daily fine of Rs. 5/- till he obtained permission for such unauthorised construction. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 448-C of 1964 before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack who by his judgment dated 16-12-65 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and the sentence. Then the opposite party preferred Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1966 before this Court against the O...
Tag this Judgment!Purnamasi Kar and anr. Vs. Purandar Kar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-14-1977
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT288; 1978CriLJ1052
ORDERN.K. Das, J.1. This revision is directed against an order passed under Section 133, Cr. P.C. The members of the second party are petitioners. The case of the first party is that he and the members of the second party have got residential houses in the bustee. The main village lane runs from east to west adjacent to that plot. There is a bi-lane nearby. The cowshed and house of the petitioner lie to the west of the bi-lane. Due to land dispute between the parties, the members of the second party have erected a mud-wall by the side of the cowshed of the first party which is a public passage. As such, the people of the locality as well as the cattle of the first party are obstructed from using the bi-lane and this has resulted in hardship to a great extent. Accordingly, the first party claims that the members of the second party have unlawfully obstructed the public road by putting the mud-wall over it.The members of the second party have denied the existence of any public road or pu...
Tag this Judgment!Baishnab Parida and ors. Vs. Subal Bhoi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-12-1977
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT297; 1978CriLJ1312
ORDERK.B. Panda, J.1. In this criminal miscellaneous case, the members of the second party in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. are challenging the maintainability of the said proceeding and for withdrawal of the Court's order dated 14-10-1977 wherein the Revenue Inspector, Algum has been appointed as the custodian of the standing crop on the disputed lands.2. The facts leading to the proceeding Under Section 145, Cr. P.C. and the impugned order therein are as follows : The petitioners and the opposite parties claim possession over certain lands as tenants in several O.L.R. cases. The landlord supported the case of the petitioners. The Tahsildar in whose court the O.L.R. cases were pending held the petitioners to be the tenants on 31-5-1977 and rejected the claim of the opposite parties. The O.L.R. cases were pending in the Court of the Tahsildar for two years. For the first year the Revenue Inspector had been appointed as Receiver. But for the second year, the petitioners were ...
Tag this Judgment!Mayadhar Paik and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-05-1977
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT102; 1978CriLJ1054
ORDERR.N. Misra, J.1. The four petitioners have been convicted under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate of Bargarh and each of them has been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. As the learned Magistrate inflicted a non-appealable sentence, this revision has been carried directly against the original conviction.2. Having heard Mr. Patnaik for the petitioners at length on merits of the matter, I am not impressed that it is a fit case for interference so far as the conviction is concerned.3. Mr. Patnaik, however, relies upon the provisions of Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 in support of his contention that the learned Magistrate should have applied Section 360 of the Code in the facts of the case and in case she was not inclined to do so, she should have recorded special reasons in the judgment for not having done so, as required under Section 361 of...
Tag this Judgment!Chowdhury and Co. Vs. Government of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori149
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuttack refusing to remit the award made by the Arbitrator.2. The facts appropriate for disposal of this appeal are the following : Plaintiff is a firm of contractors. It undertook the execution of the work entitled 'Construction of Express way from Daitari Mines to Paradeep Port -- construction of right approach (portion between Mahanadi and Taladanda canal bridge) and right guide bund of high-level bridge across the river Mahanadi at 84th mile of Expressway Reach No. XIII.' Contract No. 76 F2 of 1966-67 was duly executed. Dispute arose out of the contract and the Chief Engineer in terms of the arbitration clause appointed a Superintending Engineer to arbitrate. 41 heads of claim were referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator dealt with the claims item-wise and as against a total claim of Rs. 18,00,865.72 paise, the Arbitrator made an award for Rs. 64,260.58 paise. The Arbitrator s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›