Orissa Court February 1977 Judgments
Parbati Sham Achary Vs. Smt. Manasi Devi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori139
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. This second appeal by the defendant, is against a decree of affirmance arising out of a suit for declaration of title to and ejectment of thedefendant from the suit house, for recovery of arrear of rent of Rs. 150/- and compensation of Rs. 625/- with pendente lite and further interest.2. Plot No. 1828 measuring an area of 0.08 acre under khata No. 788 in Athgarh town is recorded as 'rasta' in the settlement record of rights, but in the remarks column thereof there is an entry to the effect that one Sk. Amir All is in forcible possession of the same by constructing a house thereon since 1938. The plaintiff's case was that he purchased the house of 2 bakharas standing on a portion of that plot from Sk. Amir All by means of a registered sale deed dated 18-9-68 (Ext. 4) and took delivery of possession of the same. The defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the house under the said Sk. Amir All and after execution of the sale deed (Ext. 4) he attorned to the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Jhunjhunwalla and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-25-1977
Reported in: 43(1977)CLT440; 1977CriLJ1390
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. The petitioners stand convicted Under Section 92 of the Factories Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and each of them has been sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- ; in default to undergo S. I. for 15 days.2. It is not necessary for me to state here the allegations against the petitioners on which they were prosecuted, as the impugned order of conviction is challenged on a pure question of law which is stated herein below.3. Mr. Panda, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that the trial against the petitioners upto the stage preceding the delivery of the judgment proceeded in the court of a second class Magistrate who did not have the power to try the petitioners for the offences alleged against them, and so the entire trial was vitiated, and hence the judgment of the trial court and also that of the appellate court, on this ground alone, cannot be sustained. Mr. Panda contends that as per Section 105(2) of the Act no court below th...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath Jew Vs. Rahas Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori181; 43(1977)CLT476
S. Acharya, J. 1. The plaintiff, adeity, has preferred this appeal through its alleged trustee against the reversing decision of the court below. The plaintiff-appellant lost its claim of possession over the suit lands in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. against the defendant-respondent. So the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration of its title to and recovery of possession of the suit lands.2. In this suit the plaintiff contends that the defendant is not a Bhag tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit lands. The defendant's father was a Bhag tenant of the said lands till his death, but after his death the plaintiff took possession of the suit lands. The defendant has no right to succeed to the aforesaid interest of his father in the suit lands and so he cannot claim possession of the suit lands on that basis.3. The defendant claims that as per the Nayagarh Tenancy Law, his father was the occupancy tenant in respect of the suit lands, and as that right is heri...
Tag this Judgment!Radheshyam Agarwalla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa, and Other ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-23-1977
Reported in: 43(1977)CLT393; [1978]113ITR196(Orissa)
R. N. MISRA J. - This is an application for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as upheld in revision by the Commissioner of Income-tax.The petitioner is an assessee under the Act. For the assessment year 1967-68, he was assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer at Titilagarh. The Income-tax Officer found two cash credits of Rs. 4,250 and Rs. 12,000 in the names of Banwarilal Agrawala and Tulsiram Agrawala, respectively. He did not accept the explanation of the assessee and added these amounts as income from other sources. The order of assessment was passed on October 17, 1970, and he directed a proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act to be initiated. In due course, the penalty matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Sambalpur under section 274(2) of the Act. On January 24, 1973, the Inspectin...
Tag this Judgment!Harekrushna Patnaik and anr. Vs. Damodar Biswal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori118; 43(1977)CLT498
P.K. Mohanti, J. 1. The plaintiffs are in appeal against a decree of affirmance.2. The suit lands originally belonged to one Pandab Rout. On 5-11-55 he executed a sale deed in respect of the same in favour of defendant No. 1 Damodar Biswal who was then a minor. Defendant No. 2 Nilamani Biswal, acting as the father-guardian of defendant No. 1, sold the suit lands to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 7-11-62 for a consideration of Rs. 250/-. On 21-12-67 plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and damages. In the alternative, they prayed for a decree for refund of consideration together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Their contention was that defendant No. 2 was the real owner of the suit lands and that defendant No. 1 was only a name lender under the sale deed dated 5-11-55 executed by Pandab Rout. Their further contention was that while they were in possession of the suit lands, they were dispossessed from the s...
Tag this Judgment!Harabati and ors. Vs. Jasodhara Debi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori142; 43(1977)CLT524
S. Acharya, J.1. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 28/72------- by the Addl. District Judge,58/69 Berhampur confirming the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Berhampur in Title Suit No. 18 of 1968.2. To appreciate the facts of this case, the admitted genealogy showing the relationship of the parties is given below:-- MUKUNDA PANI ______________________|_________________________ | | | Arjun Kasi Chandrasekhar (dead) (dead) (dead) | | | | Madan Mohan | | (D.4) | | adopted son | _________|____________ ____________________|____________ | | | | | | | Benu Ballabha Madan Mohan Hara Nisamani Srimati Dileswar (dead) (D.3) (D.4) (P.1) (P.2) (P.3) (dead) =Brundabati (adopted to =Jasodhara (D.2) Kasi) (D.1)3. The plaintiffs, as shown in the genealogical tree, are the sisters of Dileswar and defendants 2 to 4 are the distant cousins of Dileswar.4. The plaintiffs in the plaint alleged that Jasodhara (defendant No. 1), res...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sogra Khatun Vs. Bhagaban Das Khandelwal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori146; 44(1977)CLT82
S. Acharya, J.1. The sole unsuccessful defendant in both the courts below has preferred this appeal. 2. The plaintiff's suit is for realisation of Rs. 1,600 on the averment that the defendant on 11-6-56 borrowed a sum of Rs. 800 from the plaintiff on the registered mortgage deed (Ext. 2) whereby the plaint Ka schedule properties were mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff.3. The defence case was one of denial of execution of any mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and passing of any consideration thereunder. Her case is that she is a Purdanashin lady, and taking advantage of the absence of her husband from the village, the plaintiff and P.W. 3 on false pretexts and misrepresentation got the said document signed and registered by the defendant.4. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 1,600 on the finding that the impugned mortgage deed (Ext. 2) had been duly executed by the defendant; it had been validly attested as per the requirement of law, and that the defendant rec...
Tag this Judgment!Lokanath Maharana Vs. Dr. A.B. Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-03-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori182; 43(1977)CLT520
ORDERS. Acharya, J. 1. This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the unsuccessful defendant.2. The plaintiff is a medical practitioner. His suit is for realisation of Rs. 96/- as balance medical attendance dues on the defendant, Rs. 36/- as damages for non-payment of the afroesaid amount, and for interest on the said amounts and costs of the suit.3. The defendant denied the plaint allegations and pleaded that he had paid in full the plaintiffs dues and obtained receipts from him to that effect.4. The trial Court, on a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, has decreed the plaintiff's aforesaid claim only in respect of Rs. 96/- and directed payment of the same with future interest, proportionate costs of the suit and pleader's fees as specifically mentioned in the judgment.5. Mr. Sahoo, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of the fact...
Tag this Judgment!Pravat Kumar Misra Vs. Prafulla Chandra Misra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori183; 43(1977)CLT510
ORDERS. Acharya, J. 1. This Revision arises out of Title Suit No. 10 of 1974 instituted by the petitioner for recovery of arrear of rent from and for the eviction of opposite party No. 1 in this revision from the suit house. The defendant in this suit, opposite party No. 1 herein, did not appear and contest the suit. At that stage opposite party No. 2 in this revision filed a petition in the trial Court for impleading him as a party-defendant in the said suit. He claims to be impleaded as a 'party-defendant in the suit (T. S. No. 10 of 1974) on the ground that he has title to the suit house and the plaintiff has no title to that property. Opposite party No. 2 has filed another suit (Title Suit No. 16 of 1974) in the same court claiming title to the same suit house. The suit by the petitioner is for recovery of rent and eviction of defendant No. 1 from the suit house on the allegation that defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in that house by petitioner. If opposite party No. 2 is a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›