Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-22-1972
Reported in : AIR1972Ori252; 38(1972)CLT459
B.K. Patra, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 5 against a reversing judgment of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. The dispute relates to 0.27 acre of land covered by plot No. 2532 appertaining to Nijjot Khata No. 821 in village Sisthol and covered by Touzi No. 5605. One Susila Bewa was one of the co-proprietors of the touzi having a four annas share therein, As a co-sharer proprietor, she was in possession of plot No. 2532. Susila's predecessor had mortgaged this plot of land to the plaintiff No. 1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in satisfaction of the mortgage dues. Susila permanently leased out the land orally to plaintiff No. 1 on the first day of the agricultural year of 1936 (13-4-1936). Subsequently, on 17-8-1936, Bimibadhar who is the brother of Susila and her power-of-attorney holder executed an unregistered deed of lease in favour of plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2 is the son of plaintiff No. 1. On 1-5-1954, the touzi was abolished under the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-27-1972
Reported in : [1975]45CompCas76(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated February 17, 1972, passed by our learned brother, Mr. Justice Patra, as company judge in Company Act Case No. 5 of 1970. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 3 in the Company Act case are the appellants and all other parties have been impleaded as respondents. This appeal purports to be under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court read with Clause 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948. Though in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal, it had also been shown to be under the Companies Act of 1956 and the Rules made thereunder, Mr. Patnaik for the appellants concedes that no appeal against the impugned order would lie under the Act or its Rules.2. Company Act Case No. 5 of 1970, was instituted in this court on August 18, 1970, and was one under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. 129 persons were shown as petitioners. The company and several of its directors entered contest and took the stand, inter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-14-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Ori148; 39(1973)CLT70
R.N. Misra, J.1. These are three applications under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of different parties seeking for writs of certiorari to quash orders made by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Balasore Circle, amalgamating the petitioning Co-operative Societies with some other societies which have been impleaded as opposite parties in the respective cases.2. All these applications were heard analogously at the request of parties and common arguments were advanced. The points that arise for consideration are also common. There are, however, allegations of fact in each of the applications which may briefly be noticed.3. O.J.C. No. 109 of 1970 --The petitioners here are two in number. Govindpur Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society is the first petitioner. It has come through its Secretary. The second petitioner is a member of the Society. It is alleged that on application being made under the Act, the Society was duly registered and assigned registration nu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-24-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Ori186
R.N. Misra, J. 1. The petitioner claims to have passed the final examination in Civil Engineering from the Institute of Engineering Technology at Kum-banad in the State of Tamil Nadu in 1956. Between May 1956 and May, 1959, he served as Overseer under the Collector of Puri and thereafter for six months he served under the Board of Revenue. By order dated 1-4-1961, the Jharsuguda Municipal Council (Opposite party No. 1) appointed him as an Overseer. His order of appointment ran thus:--'Shri M.K. Raghavan, at present resident of Jharsuguda is appointed as Overseer (Civil) of Jharsueuda Municipality in the scale of Pay of Rs. 110-5-150-EB-8-190 EB-10/2-250/ with usual dearness allowance of Rs. 7.50 n. p. The appointment is purely temporary and terminable at any time without any notice. The appointment is subject to production of fitness certificate from Asst. Surgeon, Government Hospital, Jharsuguda; verification of antecedents and character.' 2. In April 1961, the Executive Officer of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-11-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Ori141
ORDERB.K. Patra, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in the suit giving rise to this revision petition is whether the Court of the Munsif Banki has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The opposite party as plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif. Banki for recovery of Rs. 3,200/-from the petitioner with costs and future interests thereon. His case is that on 22-3-1967, the petitioner borrowed Rs. 3,000/- from him on the basis of a usufructuary mortgage in respect of certain properties admittedly situated within the Munsiffi of Khandapara. It is recited in the mortgage bond a copy of which has been produced before me that the plaintiff was to remain in possession of the mortgaged properties and enjoy the usufruct of the land towards interest on the sum advanced. Then follows the recital which may be translated thus:'Whenever I would pay to you the principal amount you would deliver back possession of the (mortgaged) lands to me. If anybody d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-26-1972
Reported in : (1973)ILLJ508Ori
K.B. Panda, J.1. This writ petition raises the simple question whether Balimela Dam Project is an 'industry' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the following context.2. The petitioner was appointed as a machine tool operator, Grade II, on temporary basis and was posted under sub-division No. 15 on a monthly salary of Rs. 108 with usual dearness allowance. In January, 1964 his pay was refixed at Rs. 120 per month. In view of his good work he was upgraded to the post of Grade I Chargeman on a basic pay of Rs. 150 per month in December, 1964. While working so, he developed eye ailment because of working with surface grinding machine without adequate safety measures for which he had to undergo treatment. According to the petitioner, by the use of protective spectacles his eye sight was improving. During the period of treatment he was reverted to the post of machine tool operator, Grade II, on the ground that he was found not suitable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-03-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Ori80
Patra, J.1. This application in revision is directed against an order of the Munsif, First Court, Cuttack rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint. The suit is one for realisation of the price of goods said to havo been supplied to the firm known as 'M/s. Electrical Sales & Services', of which the defendants are partners. The suit was filed on 31-3-1967 and the defendants filed written statement on 31-7-1967 wherein it was contended inter alia that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party, namely, the firm 'M/s. Electrical Sales & Service.' Despite this objection taken in the written statement, no application for amendment of the plaint was made by the plaintiff, and in due course the trial of the suit took place and evidence was closed on 12-3-1970 and arguments were heard on 2-4-1970. Shortly after the close of the argument, an application was filed by the plaintiff to add the above-named firm as a defendant in the suit. There is no dispute th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-04-1972
Reported in : AIR1972Ori263
ORDERA. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner.2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:--The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 60,000/- odd on the basis of a security bond alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 7-8-1963 for Rupees 97,000/- odd on settlement of accounts between the parties. The defence in short, is that the plaintiff had supplied articles worth only Rs. 60,000/- odd, but in collusion with the defendant's agent manipulated the latter's accounts to show supply of articles worth Rs. 97,000/- odd. Before filing of the written statement, the defendant filed a petition for directing the plaintiff to produce his bills which was rejected. The written statement was filed in April, 1967. Thereafter, the defendant filed another petition on 9-1-1968 before the trial Court for directing the plaintiff to produce his accounts relating to past transactions between the parties. On objection by the plaintiff, the said petition was rejected. On 29...
Tag this Judgment!