Orissa Court March 1979 Judgments
Khitish Chandra Sahu Vs. Rajkishore Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-22-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ori10; 48(1979)CLT79
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The appeal is by the plaintiff against a reversing appellate decree arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,800/- with interest on allegations that the respondent who happens to be a cousin of the appellant and was carrying on timber business, approached him in Nov. 1967, for an advance of Rs. 5,000/- by way of temporary accommodation and took the amount on 6-11-1967 promising to repay the same on demand and thereafter executed a document by way of security acknowledging the receipt of the amount and stipulating to pay back the money on demand. Despite several demands, when the respondent did not repay the loan, the suit was filed on 6-11-1970 for realisation of the amount with interest by way of compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of loan till the date of suit.2. The defendant-respondent denied the loan and contended that the suit was hit by section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. It was further pleaded that the suit was based on a...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmall Shiwbhagawan Vs. Kalinga Iron Works
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-09-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Ori126; 48(1979)CLT104
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. The defendant has preferred this revision against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Keonjhar on 21-1-78 in Money Suit No. 1 of 1975.2. The plaintiff is a unit of the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa, Ltd. The defendant-firm carries on business in Calcutta. The plaintiff's suit, in short, is for realisation of certain amount of money claimed on the basis of the balance dues on the defendant on account of supply of goods by the plaintiff to the defendant and on account of loss sustained by the plaintiff due to payment of demurrage and other amounts due to the default of the defendants as specified in the plaint. The defendant while denying the plaintiff's claim has alleged that the court at Keonjhar has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit as no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant to the effect that ell disputes between the parties aris...
Tag this Judgment!Gurunath Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-05-1979
Reported in: 47(1979)CLT532; (1979)IILLJ488Ori
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. Petitioner is a Revenue Inspector in the employment of the State of Orissa. While he was posted at Kanchuri Circle under Chatrapur Tahasil in the district of Ganjam, a first information report was lodged against him on 29.8.1968 at the instance of the Collector, Ganjam on the allegation that he had misappropriated Government money. He was arrested on 30.8.1968 and detained in police custody till 4.9.1968. On 2.9.1968 the Collector passed an order suspending the petitioner from service (vide Annexure 1) and the order was received by the petitioner on 4.9.1968 while he was in police custody. During the pendency of the criminal case, a disciplinary proceeding was started against the petitioner as per the Collector's order dated 10.1.1969. On 31.1.1975 the criminal case ended in conviction under Sections 409 and 477A, Indian Penal Code and consequent upon conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from the date of conviction (vide Annexure 4). The ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratna Manjari Das Vs. Dr. Bhaskar Chandra Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-01-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Ori191; 48(1979)CLT59
ORDERK.B. Panda, J. 1. The sole point for consideration in this civil revision is as to when limitation will run when a court of appeal has ordered return of the memorandum of appeal to be presented in the proper forum arising in the following circumstances: The husband-opposite party had filed a suit (O. S. No. 12 of 1969) under Section 13(1)(v) and Section 10(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955) for annulment of his marriage with the petitioner, or in the alternative for a divorce or for judicial separation on the ground that the wife was suffering from Venereal disease in a communicable form, the disease not having been contacted from the husband-opposite party. The main issue in the suit was No. 4 and finally the trying Court held that-'18. Under the circumstances, when I fail to satisfy myself as required under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act that the respondent was suffering from a disease like syphilis in a communicable form as alleged by the petitioner again...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›