Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori125
Narasimham, J.1. These six revision petitions are against the order of the District Munsif of Aaka rejecting six execution petitions Nos.269, 271, 272, 273, 276 and 277 of 1944 on the ground that they were barred by limitation. The revision petitions were first heard by my Lord the Chief Justice sitting singly and he was pleased to refer to a larger Bench in view of the doubt entertained by him regarding the correctness of two Division Bench decisions of the Patna High Court reported in Banwari Narain v. Ramhari Narain, A. I. R (29) 1942 pat. 335: (197 I. C. 217) and Mohammad Sadique Mian v. Mdkabir Sao, A. I. E. (29) 1942 Pat. 410 : (21 Pat. 866).2. The material facts which are not in dispute are as follows: Execution petn. no. 269 of 44 arose out of a Small Oause Court suit which was disposed of on 1st August 1944 and the remaining five execution petitions arose out of Small Cause Court suits which were disposed of on 8th August 1941. In all those suits, the decrees were actually dra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori212
Narasimham, J.1. This is judgment debtors' appeal from a final decree dated 21-10-1944 passed by the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack in a mortgage suit. In order to appreciate the points involved in this appeal it is necessary to describe briefly the previous history of this protracted litigation.2. Patia estate known as Killa Patia is an impartible estate in Cuttack district whose proprietor was one Raja Raghunath Deb in 1913. On 26-2-1913 he executed a simple mortgage for as. 1,07,000 mortgaging the entire estate in favour of one Bhaban Sahu, the predeoessor-in-interest of the re3pondent-deoree-holders. Again on 13-8-1913 he executed a second mortgage in favour of the same Bhaban Sahu for as. 5,000 in reaped of the same property. Baja Raghuuafch Deb died subsequently and was succeeded by one Madan Mohan Dab who assumed the title of Raja Madhusudan Deb. Some time in 1917 the title of Madan Mohan Dab to Killa Patia was challenged by Acohhutananda Deb in O. S. No. 762 of 1917 in the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori157
Narasimham, J. 1. These applications are under Section 491, Criminal P, C., against the orders of detention passed by the Provincial Government in exercise of their powers under Section 2 (1) (a) read with Section 4, Orissa Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Act) as amended by the amending Act (Orissa Act VI [6] of 1949). The applications were filed before the commencement of the Constitution and the legality of the detentions was therefore challenged on various other grounds which have now become academic in view of the coming into force of the Constitution on 25th January 1950. The legality of the detention of the applicants was challenged by Mr. M. Mahanty and Mr. Mahapatra on behalf of the applicants on the ground that the provisions of the Oriasa Act dealing with preventive detention were void under Article 13(1) on account of their inconsistency with Article 22(4), 22 (5), (6) and (7) of the Constitution. The learned advocates farther rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori16; 16(1950)CLT88; [1951]19ITR219(Orissa)
Panigrahi, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, against an order of the Income Tax Tribunal, Madras Branch, praying for an order calling upon the Tribunal to state a case for the petitioner and refer it to this Court for decision. The question arising for decision, according to the petitioner, is'whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the provisions of Schedule 5 (4) are applicable to all the activities of a business or to those activities which suffered tax under the Income-tax Act, 1939.'2. The petitioner represented a joint Hindu family concern and was carrying on mercantile business in grains prior to 1918 and had been assessed to income-tax under the Income-tax Act, 1918. During the assessment year 15-4-43 to 2-4-44, the joint family became separated and was succeeded by a partnership firm consisting of the members of the family. The petitioner claimed exemption from income-tax under Schedule 5 (4), Income-tax Act, 1939. The Income-tax office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori11; 16(1950)CLT80
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the District Judge of Cuttack reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Jaipur and dismissing the appellants-plaintiffs suit for ejeatment of the defendant-respondent horn a house in village Rebana in Jaipur sub division.2. It is an unchallenged fact that the disputed property consists of survey plot Nos. 416 and 447 having an area of .09 decimals and .04 decimals respectively and recorded in Khata No. 8 in the last settlement operations. The Khatian, however, was not exhibited in the lower Court but the statement in the plaint giving the aforesaid plot numbers, area and khata number have not been controverted in the written statement. It is also an unchallenged fact that the said two plots lie in the Basti of the village and at present there is a house standing thereon with its appurtenant Bari. It is further admitted by the parties that the previous owner of the property was one Rukuni Bewa. The plaintiffs claimed to hav...
Tag this Judgment!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 : AIR1951Ori1; 17(1951)CLT10
Narasimham, J.1. This petition is against the judgment of Sri Priyanath Sarkar, Magistrate, 1st class, Berhampur, convicting the petitioner under Schedule 07, Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, for contravention of Schedule 66 of that Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The learned Magistrate also passed an order under Schedule 12 of that Act directing the petitioner to deposit the full licence fee of Rs. 285 plus cost to the District Board of Ganjam.2. The petitioner is the owner of two motor buses Nos. O. B. C. 107 and O. B. C. 115 which were plying for hire between Cuttack and Berhampur in January-March 1914. He had obtained a permit from the Regional Transport Authority for plying the vehicles on the road from Cuttack to Berhampur during the said period but he did not obtain any licence from the Ganjam District Board as required by Schedule 66 (l) (a), Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Madra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori141
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court in Bira Naik v. Sidha Kamal Nayan S A. No. 172 of 1945 : (I. L. B. (1949) l Out. 121).2. On the filing of the application, we sent for a finding of the valuation of the property in suit. The trial Court returned a finding opining that the landed property in dispute is valued at a figure more than Rs. 5,000 Besides, the plaintiff-respondent had been given a decree for recovery of masne profits to the extent of Rs. 5,000 and odd. The decree, therefore, involves rather directly some claim or question with respect to the property of the value of Rs. 10,000 or upwards within the meaning of para 2 of S. HO, Civil P. C. As this is a decree which reverses the judgments of the Courts below, the appellant has an unrestricted right of appeal to the Supreme Court. The question whether it involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of para 3 of Section 110 of the Code does not ...
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 : AIR1951Ori84
Ray, C.J.1. The petitioners seek review of the orders of the Court below convicting them under Sections 145 and 188, Penal Code, for having violated an order under Schedule 44, Criminal P. C., promulgated by the Magistrate and having failed to disperse the unlawful assembly after having been commanded to do so.2. The petitioners' contention is that the prosecution under Schedule 88, Penal Code, is bad in law as no complaint was filed by the public authority concerned according to the provisions of Schedule 95, Criminal P. C. Secondly, that the trial, being bad in law as to Schedule 88, Penal Code, is bad in its entirety.3. These contentions are sought to be met by the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the State, in two ways: (i) that the offence under. Schedule 88, Penal Code, has bean declared cognisable under Schedule 0, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and hence compliance with Section 195, Criminal P. C. is not necessary; and (ii) that even if the trial be bad with regard to...
Tag this Judgment!