Orissa Court March 1977 Judgments
Smt. Nirmala Ben Patel Vs. Indersingh Bagi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori211; 44(1977)CLT72
Mohanti, J.1. Challenge in this writ application is to the order of 'remand passed by the appellate authority under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967.2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 7 (4) of the Orissa House Rent Control Act for eviction of opposite party No. 1 from a house alleging that she required the same for her personal occupation. Opposite party No. 1 admitted that he was a monthly tenant under the petitioner in respect of the house in question, but contended that the petitioner did not require the house bona fide for her personal occupation. The case was posted to 19-10-74 for hearing, On that day opposite party No. 1 applied for adjournment which was rejected by the learned House Rent Controller and an order of eviction was passed ex parte. Opposite party No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (opposite party No. 2) and prayed for remanding the case to the House Rent Controller for giving him an opportunity to put forth his ca...
Tag this Judgment!Adhikanda Behera and anr. Vs. Dhaneswar SwaIn and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ265
ORDERN.K. Das, J.1. Second Party Nos. 1 and 2 in a proceeding Under Section 145, Cr.PC are the petitioners. The dispute relates to 0.30 acres of land appertaining to plots 882/1489, 880, 876, 882, 882/1520, 883 and 881 in village Pariapatpur, P. S. Balianta, District Puri. The learned Magistrate has found possession in favour of the first party. The judgment does not contain the cases of the respective parties. The proceeding was started On a police report.2. The case of the first party is that the members of the second party have no title or possession over the disputed land. They are Bhois by caste and have a strong combination under some influential persons of the village. The suit land belonged to one Iswar Mallik. Hadi Bewa was his wife and Kanchan Dei was his daughter. Iswar was in possession of the disputed land. He died in 1966 leaving Hadi and Kanchan as his heirs. His widow Hadi remained in possession of the land for herself and on behalf of Kanchan. After a few months of the...
Tag this Judgment!Dhobai Sahu and ors. Vs. Keshab Bag
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ266
ORDERN.K. Das, J.1. Members of the second party in a proceeding Under Section 145, Criminal P. C. are the petitioners. The learned Magistrate, after discussing the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the m embers of the second party were in possession of the property. The first party came up in revision to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Balangir. The learned Sessions Judge, without discussing the materials on record on merits, has remanded the case to the trial Court on the ground that it was the bounden duty of the Magistrate to find out as to who was in possession of the disputed property on the date of the preliminary order. After going through the judgment of the learned Magistrate, I find that after considering the materials on record the has come to the conclusion that the members of the second party were all along in possession. If the spirit of the order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that the party in whose favour possession has been found was all along ...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Kalidas Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-28-1977
Reported in: 43(1977)CLT555; [1978]42STC9(Orissa)
S.K. Ray, J.1. Both these cases have been taken up together as they involve an identical question, but relate to different assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70.2. On an application being made under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the assessee for a reference to this court, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, has referred the following question for opinion of the court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, glass bangles (glass chudies) would be covered by entry No. 38 of the taxable list of goods other than luxury goods framed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act or they will be treated as unclassified goods ?3. The assessee-petitioner is a registered dealer and carries on business in glass bangles at Sambalpur town. His gross turnover of sales for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 is not in controversy. Tax, however, was imposed on the sale of glass bangles for these two years at the rate of 7 per cent as specified...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bilas Thakur Vs. Tahsildar-cum-revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori208; 43(1977)CLT710
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for quashing the fixation of ceiling in a suo motu proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the application are the following: One Bhagaban Panda was the recorded owner in respect of 17.19 acres of agricultural and waste lands located within Barpalli area of the district of Sambalpur. He died in the month of April, 1970 leaving behind two widows -- Phula and Madhabi --- and two daughters -- Bilas (petitioner) who was long married born through Phula and Krishnapriya, still minor, born through Madhabi. The widows did not file any return as contemplated under Section 40-A of the Act and a suo motu proceeding was initiated by the Revenue Officer. On receipt of notice, the two widows filed an objection in August, 1975, as per Annexure 2. In para. 4 of this objection, it was specifically alleged that Bhagaban had alienated 8.98 acres of land to four named transfere...
Tag this Judgment!Keso Sahu and ors. Vs. Saligram Shah
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: 43(1977)CLT615; 1977CriLJ1725
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. The petitioners stand convicted Under Section 341, I. P. C., and each of them has been sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- ; in default to undergo R. I. for one month.2. The complainant's case against the petitioners in short is that the complainant is a retail dealer of rice and he had two shops, one at Nuagan and another at Suajore, On 2-5-1973 he received 27 quintals of rice to be sold on control price from the F. C. I. godown at Nuagan. On 5-5-1973 very early in the morning, by about 4 A. M., the complainant was transporting 11 quintals of rice in 12 bags in two buffalo-carts through Baisakhu Bhokta (P. W. 3) from his Nuagan shop to his shop at Suajore. When the said bags of rice were being taken to Suajore from Nuagan, the petitioners armed with lathis surrounded the carts and the cart- men, did not allow them to proceed towards Suajore and wanted to take them forcibly to the Bihar boarder. P. W. 3 was accompanying the buffalo carts. As the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Biswanath Panda and ors. Vs. Dr. Lokanath Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori170; 44(1977)CLT273
1. Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment. Plaintiffs are appellants in both the appeals which were heard analogous.Parties to the suit belong to the same family, Krushna Chandra Samantaray had three sons -- Laxman (who is dead), Biswanath (plaintiff No. 1) and Lokanath (defendant), Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of Laxman.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that while their family was joint. Laxman was the Sarbarakar and defendant was serving as a doctor at Narsinghpur. Plaintiff No. 1 was looking after the properties. The properties were acquired out of the joint efforts of the brothers and, after amicable partition, the brothers were possessing separate properties. On 19-3-1935, the defendant made an application on behalf of all the three brothers to the Raja Saheb of Narasinghpur for settlement of the lands described in Schedule B of the plaint and the Raja Saheb settled the lands in fovour of the three brothers on 13-5-1935. These lands, like all other lands acquired by th...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Susila Sa and ors. Vs. Durju and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori178; 44(1977)CLT37
1. Plaintiffs are appellants against a reversing decision. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title of the plaintiffs along with defendants 8 to 11 in respect of Schedules A and B properties described in the plaint. Further, they claimed for recovery of possession of Schedule A properties.The dispute in this Second Appeal relates only to Schedule A properties.Defendants 1 to 4 are sons and defendants 5 to 7 are daughters of Makunda Sa since deceased. Makund was the alienee of the entire A schedule properties from Ujal and Giridhari who are sons of Parikshit. The properties are admittedly ancestral properties. Plaintiffs 1 and 4 are the daughters of Ujal and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of Giridhari Sa, Original defendant 8 and defendant 9 are the daughters and defendant 10 is the widow of Ujal. Defendant 11 is Giridhari himself. There is no dispute about the genealogy.2. Plaintiffs' case is that Schedule A lands appertaining to holding 32 of village Jiratmal under Balangir...
Tag this Judgment!T. Bhagirao Vs. K. Panduranga Subudhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori210; 43(1977)CLT465
Shankar, C.J. 1. Challenge in this petition filed by the tenant is to Annexures 1 and 2. Annexure 1 is the order passed by the House Rent Controller in proceedings under the Orissa House Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) granting a decree against the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the suit house to O. P. No. 1 within two months. Annexure 2 is the order in appeal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8-9-75 confirming the order of eviction. 2. The order of eviction was granted against the petitioner by the House Rent Controller on the ground that the house in question was required in good faith by O. P. No. 1 for purposes of his profession and also that the same was bona fide required by him for remodelling to make it suitable for the aforesaid purpose. The learned appellate Court negatived the first ground, but agreed with the learned House Rent Controller that the house was required for remodelling and on this basis maintained the eviction ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Panda Vs. the State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ori135; 43(1977)CLT633
S. Acharya, J.1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal.2. The plaintiff executed certain work relating to the Minor Irrigation Project at Sittagunda. After the completion of the work the plaintiff claimed certain amount as his dues from the above-named defendants for the work done by him in connection with the said Project and as the defendants did not pay the said amount he filed Title Suit No. 78 of 1969 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Aska to pass a decree directing the defendants to file the agreement between him and Government in the court, and also appointing an arbitrator to adjudicate the claims of the plaintiff in respect of the said work and to pass an award in accordance therewith. That suit was decreed against the defendants and they were directed to file the agreement in court, and an arbitrator was appointed to decide the dispute and to pass an award. The arbitrator in his award dated 5-12-73 directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 13,356.48 to the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »