Orissa Court January 1978 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pratap Chandra Patnaik Vs. Kamala Kanta Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori153; 45(1978)CLT399
S. Acharya, J. 1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the reversing decision of the court below. The plaintiff's suit is for declaration of his right, title and interest over the plaint. A schedule lands and for confirmation, or in the alternative for recovery of possession thereof,2. The plaintiff's case, in short, is that: The plaint A schedule lands are the ancestral property of the plaintiff and that he was in possession of the same. The plaint B schedule land, which is a part of the plaint A schedule lands, was encroached upon by defendant No. 1 and his father Shyamsundar Das in the year 1967, and in a proceeding Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. between the parties possession of the suit B schedule land was declared in favour of defendant No. 1. Hence this suit.3. Defendant No. 1 only contested the suit. His case in short is that: About 40 years back his father purchased from one Ananta Charan Patnaik 11/2 mans of land adjoining the land of the plaintiff. Thereafter he encroa...
Balaji Mohaprabhu and anr. Vs. Narasingha Kar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori199; 45(1978)CLT492
S. Acharya, J. 1. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the decision of the court below confirming the decision of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for a declaration that plaintiff No. 2 is the hereditary trustee of the deity, plaintiff No. 1, and for other ancillary reliefs.2. The plaintiffs' case, in short, is that plaintiff No. 2 is the sole hereditary trustee of the deity, plaintiff No. 1. Late Rama Mahanty was the last male hereditary trustee of the deity. After his death in 1920, his widow Jamuna succeeded as a trustes of the deity, but as she was then a minor, her father Bada Ghana Patra was managing the deity's affairs on behalf of Jamuna. The first defendant and his relations at times used to help Jamuna and Bada Ghana Patra in the management of the deity's affairs. In 1921 the first defendant falsely claimed to be the hereditary trustee of the deity and forcibly occupied the temple of the deity and its properties. At this Jamuna filed O. S. No. 216/...
K. Chitti Babu Vs. K. Anjaneyelu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori233; 45(1978)CLT387
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. This writ application is directed against an order of ejectment made under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. Opposite party No. 1 claiming himself to be the owner of the house in question filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he had wilfully defaulted in the payment of rent and further that the house in question was required by opposite party No. 1 for his own use and occupation to start a hardware shop for his sons.3. The petitioner filed counter denying the allegations of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the house. It was contended that the house in question belongs to the deity Shri Nilakantheswar Swamy of Berhampur town and the rent of the house was meant to be used for the bhograg of the deity and that the opposite party No. 1 had no legal right to maintain the case in his personal capacity.4. The House Rent Controller ...
Gangadhar Panda Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-23-1978
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT373; 1978CriLJ863
ORDERN.K. Das, J.1. This petition Is to quash the charges framed against the petitioner in G. R. Case No. 960 of 1974 of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanv balpur.2. The undisputed facts are that during course of investigation about the misappropriation said to have been done by the petitioner, the alleged misappropriation relating to the present case was detected. This is apparent from para 3 of the order dated 15-3-77 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. While investigation was made and admittedly when the items of defalcation relating to this case had already been noticed, a case on other items was started which ultimately ended in acquittal. Those items admittedly relate to the very same period.3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that though legally speaking the present case is maintainable, the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction in quashing the charges, as the same will prejudicially affect the petitioner. Reliance is placed on a Division...
Balunki Behera Vs. Smt. Rukuni Beherani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori142; 45(1978)CLT616
S. Acharya, J.1. Defendant No. 1, the main contestant of the plaintiff's case, has preferred this appeal against the confirming decision of the court below declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit house and directing the defendant No. 1 to vacate possession of the suit house or to be evicted therefrom through court.2. The suit house admittedly belonged to Ramakrishna Behera, the father of the plaintiff and the paternal grandfather of defendant No. 1, Ramakrishna had three eons, Balabhadra, Kalia (father of defendant No. 1) and Laxman. Kalia and Lax-man executed a registered sale deed (Ext. 1) on 10-12-46 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 300/-, As defendant no, a, the appellant herein, was then a minor, the document was executed on his behalf by Kalia as the father-guardian of the minor. Kalia died within a short time after the execution of the sale deed.3. The plaintiff's case, in short, is that Balabhadra died issueless prior to the year 1946. Thereafter Kalia and Laxman sold the...
Dharmu Naik Vs. Rabindranath Acharya
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-16-1978
Reported in: 45(1978)CLT348; 1978CriLJ864
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. This is a complainant's appeal against an order of acquittal. The accused-respondent is a police officer who was posted as Officer-in-charge of Kok-sara Police Station in the district of Kalahandi at the time of occurrence.2. In G. R. Case No. 351 of 1973 (wrongly registered as G. R. Case No. 361 of 1973 as deposed to by D.W. 1) the complainant and his brother (P.W. 3) were prosecuted Under Sections 294 and 323 of the IPC and Sections 24 and 25 of the Cattle Trespass Act. On 21-7-73 they surrendered in court and were ordered to be released on bail. The complainant's case was that on the same day he went ahead by a bus towards his village and P.W. 3 was to carry the bail order for delivery at the Police Station. The respondent was also travelling by the same bus up to Koksara Police Station. When the bus reached the Police Station the respondent forced the complainant to get down. He protested saying that he had been allowed bail. But the respondent dragged him out of...
Executive Engineer Vs. Sankar Maharana
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori121
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act of 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Berhampur refusing to remit an award and making it a rule of the court. 2. Respondent entered into a contract in the prescribed F-2 form with the Executive Engineer (Roads and Buildings) Division, Ganjam, for the laying of the approach road to the high-level bridge over river Bagua between Aska and Boirani. There was dispute between the parties in the matter of payment of the dues for the work done by the contractor and the contractor invoked the arbitration clause in the contract. Ultimately under Section 20 of the Act, an application was made to the court and the court appointed Sri Banabasi Patnaik, Superintending Engineer in the employment of the State Government as Arbitrator. On 14-2-19-76, the award was made and on 17th February, 1976, the same was filed in court. On behalf of the Execu...
Bhikari Charan Panda Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-1978
Reported in: [1978]112ITR526(Orissa)
R. N. MISRA J. - This is an application for a writ of certiorari to quash an imposition of penalty under section 274(2) read with section 271 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Opposite Party No. 1).Assessee is an advocate of Cuttack. For the assessment year 1970-71, he made a return of income of Rs. 3,933. The Income-tax Officer (Opposite Party No. 2) by the order of assessment dated December 31,1970, determined the income at Rs. 16,500. Upon appeal, the Appellate Assistant the Commissioner reduced the income to Rs. 14,300. There is no dispute that the income of the petitioner for the year has been finally determined at that amount. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 271C of the Act and referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as in his view the minimum penalty imposable in the case was in excess of Rs. 1,000. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner calle...
Batakala Budhia Patro Vs. Durgasi Dandasi Patro and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ori103; 45(1978)CLT648
S. Acharya, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 has preferred this appeal against the reversing decision of the court below.2. The plaintiff's suit is for eviction of the defendants from the suit house and for realisation of arrear of rent till delivery of possession of the suit house. The plaintiff's case, in short, is that he let out on monthly lease the suit house belonging to him to defendant No. 1 on the Kumar Purnima dayof 1965 (10-10-1965) for a period of five years on monthly rent of Rs. 3/-. As defendant No. 1 was a close relation of the plaintiff, no lease deed was executed while letting out the said house. Defendant No. 1 occupied the suit house and regularly paid the agreed rent till Baisakh Purnima of the year 1970, whereafter he defaulted to pay the rent in spite of demands. He also sublet the suit house to defendant No. 2. As the plaintiff did not receive payment of the house rent from defendant No. 1 and as the latter sublet the house to defendant No. 2, the plaintiff by serving a re...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›