Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori67
Ray, C.J.1. The four cases, mentioned above, arising out of as many petitions, were some of the pending cases in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court ceased from the 26th July, under Orissa High Court Constitution Order. They have since been transferred to this Court, and heard analogously, as the points for decision are common to all and will be governed by this order.2. Criminal Misc. 2/48 has been filed by one Saradhakar Naik of Bamra State, seeking interference of this Court, in the matter of illegal arrest and detention of one Jaydev Thakur of Bamra State and to order him to be set at liberty.3. Similarly, Cr Misc. nOS. 3, 4 and 5 of 1948 arise out of petitions filed, respectively, by Jayadev Naik of Bamra, Rual Naik and Pravakar Das of Kalahandi, in relation to the arrests and detentions of Batnakar Patra of Bamra, Nilakanth Patnaik and Lingaraj Daa of Kalahandi. In all the petitions, the legality of arrests and detentions of the prisoners has been challenged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori168
Ray, C.J.1. I have had. the opportunity a privilege of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother Narasimham, J. I am in entire agreement with him as to the answers proposed therein & associate myself with all the reasons adduced in support thereof. I also agree with the order of conviction & sentences proposed.2. In view, however, of the practical importance of the question posed to standardisation & stabilisation of this branch of law in this State, I propose to add, as given below, some further reasons for my agreement with him. I have, since, seen the judgment proposed by my learned brother Das, J. He agrees with answers proposed. He, however, has added some further reasons not for the purpose of rein, forcing the correctness of the answers but for a different purpose. It seems he should approach the question with a leaning towards admissibility of a confession as a rule leaving it to the accused to be bound thereby to establish the exception by proof of circumstances that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori182
Jagannadhadas, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The appeal arises out of a suit filed under Order 21, Rule 63, of the Civil P. C., which has been filed by the plaintiff-decree-holder against whom an adverse order was passed, on a claim filed by the 1st defendant. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court, but on appeal it was decreed against the 1st defendant and hence this appeal. 2. The suit property comprises two lots, specified in the plaint covering an extent of .010 acres which admittedly belonged to one Kinu Sahu. Defendant 1 is his daughter. D. 2 according to the plaintiff is the adopted son of Kinu Sahu and D. 3 is the son of D. 2. Kinu Sahu appears to have died sometime long prior to 1919. D. 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 90/- from the plaintiff on a mortgage of certain property, other than the suit property, admittedly belonging to Kinu Sahu. The mortgage is Ex. 1 dated 5-5-1919. The palintiff filed subsequently a suit on that mortgage, obtained a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori359
Das, C.J. 1. This is an application by the Petitioner who is a nominated fellow of the Utkal University, made under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto as against the Vice-Chancellor and certain fellows of the Utkal University, challenging the election of some of them to the Senate of the University in the following circumstances :2. The application arises out of the requirement in Section 12 of the Utkal University Act, which provides for the compulsory retirement of one-fifth of the elected Fellows of the Senate in rotation at the end of each year. The names of the persons who have to be retired are determined by the process of balloting, to be conducted by the Vice-Chancellor, as provided in the Statutes framed by the Senate under the University Act. The names of those persons who were to retire by the end of December, 1952, were in fact determined by the process of balloting carried out by the then Vice-Chancellor. Thereupon a fresh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1953Ori25; 19(1953)CLT1
Jagannadhadas, C.J.1. This suit comes up to us by withdrawal from the Court of Sub-Judge, Cuttack, for a decision on the preliminary issue raised therein as regards jurisdiction. The suit was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Cuttack and thedefendant has taken an objection that the Cuttack Sub-Court has no local jurisdiction over the suit. A preliminary decision of this issue has been found necessary as incidental to the disposal of the application M.J.C. 164/51 that came up before us. That was an application for transfer of another suit at Balasore to be tried along with suit at Cuttack. In the course of the arguments on that application, a point was rightly taken on behalf of the respondent therein that it would be futile toconsider the question of transfer of the Balasore suit to be tried with the Cuttack-suit if ultimately it is found that the Cuttack-suit was not maintainable on the ground of local jurisdiction.It may be mentioned that during the earlier stages of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1957Ori42
Mohapatra, J. 1. This is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution against a decision dated 16th November 1955 of this Court in O.J.C. 401 of 1954. The petitioner alleges that he started business In January 1943 at the instance of the ex-Ruler of Mayurbhanj. The business was running in the name of Indian Chemical Products, the main purpose being manufacture of industrial alcohol and essential oils.It was agreed between the petitioner and the ex-Ruler of Mayurbhanj that each would contribute a moiety towards the capital of the business and each would have to suffer half the loss, if any, in the business. The petitioner further alleges that after the merger of the State of Mayurbhanj within the State of Orissa, the business had to be closed as the petitioner had suffered considerable loss.Under the provisions of the Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949, the petitioner laid his claim against the State of Mayurbhanj on 24th March 1949 before the Sub-div...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori4
ORDERP.V.B. Rao, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pun, refusing to extend the time for passing an award on a reference made by the parties.2. In pursuance of the terms of an agreement executed by the petitioner and the Government of Orissa in July, 1953, the Governor of Orissa constituted a Tribunal consisting of three members for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The Chairman of that Tribunal sent an application to the learned Subordinate Judge along with a letter dated 20-6-56 stating the circumstances under which the award could not be made within four months after entering on the reference and also requesting for enlargement of time. The petitioner also filed a similar application.3. The date of entering on the reference was 27-1-54 when all the members of the Tribunal met together. On 22-4-54 the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal to withdraw the reference and after hearing the said petition, the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori79; 24(1958)CLT377; [1958]9STC648(Orissa)
P.V.B. Rao, J. 1. The petitioners Messrs. Jami Narasaya Prusty and Brothers through the Managing Partner Jami Narasaya Prusty filed this application for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus on the opposite party not to collect the tax assessed on the turn-over of Rs. 45000/- during the three quarters as sales tax.2. The petitioners are a partnership firm consisting of Jami Narasaya Prusty, Jami Sundarbalu Prusty and Jami Srivangan Prusty and are dealers registered as such under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The petitioners submitted a return of their sales for the quarters ending 30-6-55, 30-9-55 and 31-12-55 for a gross turn-over of Rs. 36,332-6-3, Rs. 41,807 0-6 and Rs. 33,883-12-6 respectively The petitioner are dealers in grocery, stationery, toilets, books, Khadi cloths, oils, oil-seeds, iron goods, agricultural implements etc. and maintained their accounts on the gross sales that took place in their shop.The Sales Tax Officer was not satisfied with the gross return made by the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori148
S. Barman, J.1. The defendants are the appellants before us. In May 1950, the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants alleging that they were trespas ers on the suit land. In September, 1951, there was a decree for ejectment of the defendants. Against the said decree, seven defendants appealed. During the pendency of the appeal one of the defendants being defendant No. 6 Chintamani Paital, died leaving him surviving his heirs and legal representatives. Admittedly, there was no substitution of the deceased's heirs and legal representatives.2. The only question for consideration on these facts, briefly stated above, is whether it was a case of partial or total abatement.3. It appears from the frame of the suit, as in the plaint, that it was a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title. The prayers in paragraph 10 of the plaint are as follows:'(a) that it be declared that the plaintiff No. 1 through the trustees plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 has title to the suit lands and that the def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori98
R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court (which is applicable to Orissa by virtue of the Orissa High Court Order 1948) against the judgment (in appeal) of a single Judge of this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 81 of 1956. That appeal was filed against the appellate judgment of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) passed under Section 44 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1951 (Orissa Act No. II of 1952 -- hereinafter referred to as the new Act) dismissing an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Commissioner) passed under Section 41 of that Act declaring a particular religious institution to be a public one and one Ramesh Chandra Das and his agnates to be the hereditary trustees of the same.A preliminary objection was taken to the entertainability of this...
Tag this Judgment!