Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori138
Panigrahi, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Orissa Against an order of acquittal recorded by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, in a case arising under Schedule 88 Penal Code.2. The case for the prosecution is that the accused Oriya Sama Majhi disobeyed an order under Schedule 44 criminal P. C. promulgated on 5-2-49, in the Bamangati Subdivision of Mayurbhanj District, prohibiting the residents there in from carrying bows and arrows or any deadly weapons. It is alleged that the accused was moving about on 31-3-49 in his village, Maranda, with a bow, arrows, and a sword shouting that he would kill his enemies with, these weapons. The order under Schedule 44 was duly promulgated on 5-2-49, and it is proved that the accused had knowledge of the ban imposed under this order. The trying magistrate recorded a finding that the accused intentionally disobeyed the order and that the disobedience caused danger to human life and safety.He accordingly convicted the accused of an offence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori5
R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Raja of Puri challenging the constitutional validity of Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 (Orissa Act II of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed by the Orissa Legislature and published in the Orissa Gazettee dated 4-11-1955.2. The petition was filed by Sri Ramchandra Deb, who made extravagant claims to the effect that the Temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) was the private temple of his family, that all its movcable and immovable properties were also his private properties, and that by passing the Act the Orissa Legislature infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 26, 27, 28 and 31(2) of the Constitution. Sri Ramchandra Deb died after the filing of the petition and his son Sri Bira Kishore Deb, was substituted in his place on 5-3-1957. Mr. A. C. Gupta who appeared for Sri Bira Kishore Deb frankly conceded that the Temple was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1955Ori122
Mohapatra, J.1. These three petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of prohibition or mandamus directing the opposite party, the Assistant Collector of Commercial Taxes, Central Circle, Orissa, not to assess the petitioners to sales tax, The three cases involve the same points of law and the facts are almost identical. They were heard together and arc disposed of in this judgment of ours. The petitioners are private Limited Liability Companies having their registered office at Mount Road, Madras.The petitioner in O. J. C. No. 194 of 1954, carries on the business of selling automobile parts, accessories, tools and equipments; the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 196 of 1954, carries on the business of selling Perkins Automotive, Tractor, Marine and Industrial Dissel Engines and spare parts etc.; and the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 197 of 1954, carries on the business of selling motor cars and trucks, automobile parts and accessories. The petitioners-companies, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1954Ori186; 20(1954)CLT417; [1954]24CompCas392(Orissa)
ORDERNarasimham, J.1. This is a reference by the Official Liquidator of Puri Bank (under liquidation) for a direction from this Court as to whether under Sections 18 and 19, Orissa Estates Abolition Act (Orissa Act 1 of 1952) he should file a claim on behalf of the Bank before the claims Officer for determination of the amount payable to the Bank out of the total compensation money due to the judgment-debtor whose estate has already vested in the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The Advocate General appeared on behalf of the Government to oppose the reference. But none appeared on behalf of the judgment-debtor though notice was served on him.2. The Puri Bank (which is now under liquidation) was the mortgagee of the proprietary interest of the judgment-debtor in village Barhat Trilochanpur. In M. S. No. 19 of 1951 filed by the Official Liquidator, this Court passed a preliminary mortgage decree on 8-2-1952 and made it final on the 20th January, 1953 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1983Ori210
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. In this batch of writ applications the petitioners challenge the vires of the Orissa Cess Act, 1962 in so far as it purported to levy cess on lands held for carrying on mining operations and seek mandamus for quashing the demands raised against them and the proceedings taken for recovery of the demands.2. The Orissa Cess Act, 1962 (hereinafter called 'the Cess Act') was enacted, by the Orissa State Legislature with a view to consolidating and amending the law relating to cess in the State of Orissa. It got the assent of the Governor on. 3-5-1962 and came into force with effect from 1-4-1963. The statement of objects and reasons indicated that the assessment and levy of cess were being made 'under the various statutes and also in accordance with various local usages and customs which differ from district to district. This makes their administration difficult and gives cause for complaint by the public due to lack of uniformity. The present Bill is proposed to be enact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori86; 16(1950)CLT209
Narasimham, J.1. These four petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against certain orders of the District Magistrate of Kalahandi directing the internment of the petitioners within the limits of Nawapara sub-division of that district in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2, Orissa Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1948.2. Petitioner Ismail is the son of the petitioner Khan Sahib Adam Hazi Saleh Mohammed and the family have extensive business with headquarters in Nawapara sub-division. They have also extensive agricultural lands in that sub-division. Affidavits were filed on their behalf to the effect that they were nationals of the Indian Union and in the counter affidavit filed by the Government this citizenship was not challenged and we would therefore take it as well, established that the two petitioners are citizens of the Indian Union. On 17-7-49 the then District Magistrate of Sambalpur, (within whose jurisd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori378
Narasimham, J.1. This reference to the special Bench was necessitated in consequence of a difference of opinion between my lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother Justice Das who first heard the appeal as a Division Bench.2. The essential facts have been fully set out in the judgment of my learned brother Justice Das and it is unnecessary to repeat them at length. Appellant Radhi Bewa (who was defendant No. 2 in the original suit) is the widow of one Bairagi who died sometime in 1932 or 1934. Respondent Bhagawan (plaintiff no. 1) is the own brother of Batragi and respondents Brundaban and Hrudanand (plaintiffs 2 and 3) are the sons of another brother of Bhagawan and Bairagi named Natha who is dead. There was another brother of Bhagawan named Bharat who died leaving a widow named Keluni (defendant no. 1) and a daughter (defendant no 3.) They were also parties to the litigation in the early stages and it appears that they eventually compromised with the plaintiffs. The whole case p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1965Ori114; 1965CriLJ54
R.K. Das, J. 1. This is a complainant's appeal against an order, dated 11-7-1963 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, acquitting the respondents of an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code.2. Accused Dayauidhi is the Manager and accused Ganesh is an employee of Messrs. Patnaik Industries (P.) Limited, Bhubaneswar. P. W. 1, Sudhakar Das, is the managing director of another concern known as Orissa Concretes Products Ltd., near about the above firm at Bhubaneswar. On 17-6-1961, P, W. 1 came to know that some high-tension steel wires had been stolen from their factory. On 16-6-1961 at about 8 in the morning, P. W. 1 went to the factory premises of Patnaik Industries and found one coil in their store which he identified as their coil. Accused Dayanidhi was then absent from the factory. So P. W. 1 went to his residence and informed him that one of their missing coils was found in the premises of Patnaik Industries. Dayanidhi felt surprised and promised to look into th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2003Ori117
A.S. Naidu, J.1. M/s. OCL India Limited, an existing Company engaged in the business of manufacture of cement and refractory products, having its registered office and factory at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundargarh, Orissa, seeks to challenge the inclusion of its 'Industrial Township' within the purview of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 and prays mainly for issuance of a mandamus commanding the opposite parties to alter, cancel or rescind the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 so as to exclude from its operation and purview of 'Industrial Township' constituted and notified under Section 4 of the Orissa Municipal Act. There is also a further prayer to declare Section 2 (f) of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 as amended to the extent it seeks to levy Entry Tax on goods entering the area within the Industrial Township constituted under Section 4 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 as ultra vires apart from other ancillary prayers.2. In course of hearing, Mr. Gangadhar Rath, learned senior Advoca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori281; [1952]22ITR220(Orissa)
Narasimham, J.1. This is an application under Sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Orissa Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1947 against an order of the Revenue Commissioner refusing, to state a case for the decision of the High Court in respect of the assessment of the petitioner of agricultural income-tax for the year 1947-48.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of the impartible estates of Khallikote, Ataganda and Biridhi. On 26-5-49, the Agricultural Income-Tax officer of Ganjam made an assessment on the total agricultural income of the petitioner for the year 1947-48 as estimated by him. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 25 of the Act before the Collector of Agricultural Income-Tax, Orissa, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment on the 6th March, 1950. The petitioner then filed a revision petition under Section 23of the Act before the Revenue Commissioner who rejected this petition. Then he applied to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!