Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-05-1955
Reported in : 21(1955)CLT521; 7STC36(Orissa)
..... state. the term 'court' has acquired the meaning of 'a place where justice is administered' and also applies to persons who exercise judicial functions under authority derived either immediately or mediately from the sovereign power. all tribunals, however, are not courts in the sense in . which the term is understood. thus arbitrators, committees of clubs and the like though they may .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-12-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Ori164
panigrahi, c.j. 1. this application comes before us on a reference made by, the revenue commissioner under section 24, orissa sales tax act (act 14 of 1947). the questions referred to us for opinion are the following:'(1) whether the maharaja of jeypore in leasing out the right 'to cut and remove timber and collect forest produce is a 'dealer' under clause (c) of section 2, orissa sales tax act? (2) whether the transactions evidenced by leases, a copy of which is oh record, of the right to cut and remove timber and collect forest produce,amount in law to lease of immovable property? (3) whether the royalty and seigniorage payable under the lease constitute 'rent' or 'price'? (4) whether the trees and forest produce is moveable property coming under the definition of 'goods' under the orissa sales tax act or is immovable property?' 2. the maharaja of jeyppre owns extensive forest areas and gets a large income from forest produce. he keeps a depot where timber and other forest produce are sold, and this business is run by the chief forest officer of the jeypore samasthanam. the officer holds a dealer's registration certificate, no. ko--434 and pays sales tax under the act. in addition he has also entered into certain contracts with businessmen for the extraction and manufacture of railway sleepers. he was called upon to get himself registered as a dealer by the sales tax authorities in respect of these contracts entered into by the samasthanam with sleeper contractors. the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-01-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Ori156
panigrahi, c.j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration of their sole right to collect, remove, and sell kendu leaves from inside the borders of the garloisingh zamindarl in sambalpur district, and for recovery of a sum of rs. 88200/- from the defendants for 'wrongful collection and removal' of the same during the years 1944 to 1946.the plaintiffs also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right to collect kendu leaves in future, for the period covered by the contract entered into between the plaintiffs and the deceased zamindar, madan mohan singh. defendant 1 is a lessee from defendant 2 who is the present zamindar of garloisingh. the father of defendant 2 executed a document, ex. 19 dated 29-1-1938, in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 permitting them to collect and remove kendu leaves within the ambits of his zamindari for a period of 15 years commencing from 1944.the plaintiffs agreed to pay an annual royalty of es. 6,000/- for the privilege granted by the zamindar. on the same date and simultaneously with the document described as a lease the previous zamindar executed a bond for rs. 10,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs stipulating that the royalty payable by the plaintiffs under the lease should be adjusted towards interest accruing due under the debt bond if the debt bond remained undischarged till then.within a few months after the execution of the two deeds marked as exs. 19 and 18 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-25-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Ori73; 21(1955)CLT116
panigrahi, c.j.1. this case comes before us on a reference by a division bench. the question referred to us for our opinion is formulated as follows :'whether the provisions of section 3(2), hindu women's rights to property act, 18 of 1937 as amended by act, 11 of 1938 are retrospective so as to apply to the case of a widow whose husband died prior to the date when the said act came into force.'this reference was necessitated on account of the majority decision in -- 'badhi bewa v. bhagawan sahu', air 1951 orissa 378 (sb) (a), according to which section 3(2) of the act is retrospective in operation and, consequently, the widow of a hindu who died before the act came into force, viz., before 14-4-1937, was entitled to her husband's share provided that the joint family continued till the date when partition was demanded. this view was subjected to much adverse criticism by another bench of this court in -- 'nandakishore v. sukti dibya', air 1953 orissa 240 (b). in a later case decided by narasimham and mohapatra jj. in -- 'haramoni v. dinabandhu', air 1954 orissa 54 (c), narasimham j. reiterated his view that section 3(2) of the act was retrospective though the case was decided on the footing that the decision of the special bench in radhi bewa's case (a), did not apply to the facts of that case while mohapatra j. stuck to his view in nandakishore's case (b).2. the decision in radhi bewa's case (a), has not been followed either in this court or in any other court since its .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-28-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Ori58; 21(1955)CLT561
mohapatra, j.1. this is a plaintiff's second appeal, against the reversing judgment dated 31-8-1951 of sri b. n. panda, second additional subordinate judge of cuttack, arising out of a suit under order 21, rule 63, civil p.c., the plaintiff being the judgment-creditor. defendant 2 had executed a handnote in favour of the plaintiff on 24-4-1945 for a sum of rs. 200/- on the basis of which the plaintiff obtained a decree on 14-7-1947, the s.c.c. suit having been filed on 11-1-1947.the plaintiff started execution against the judgment-debtor (defendant 2) on 19-1-1948 and claimed for attachment of the disputed property. defendant 1, who alone is contesting the suit, filed a petition under order 21, rule 58, civil p.c., alleging that defendant 2 had executed a kabala in respect of the deputed land for rs. 90/- on 20-7-1946, and, as such, the property should be released for attachment.his petition under order 21, rule 58 having been allowed by the executing court, the present suit has been brought by the judgment-creditor for a declaration that the sale in favour of defendant 1 is purely a sham and nominal transaction on the basis of which no title passed in favour of defendant 1. he has further prayed that the summary order passed in the miscellaneous case under order 21, rule 58 be set aside.2. defendant 1 took up the simple plea that the kabala in his favour was genuine and for consideration and he was in possession of the suit property since the date of purchase.3. the trial .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-07-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Ori84
orderp.v.b. rao, j. 1. this is an application by 14 petitioners under sections 162 and 166, companies act, for compulsory winding up of the joyoti pictures ltd., with its head office at berhampur. 2. it is alleged in the petition that petitioners 1 to 14 are contributories, & petitioner 6 and some others are creditors of the joyoti pictures ltd., that the company is a private limited company registered under the indian companies act, 1918 in 1942; that the company has a board of 3 directors; that the registered office of the company is at berhampur in ganjam district; that the authorised capital of the company originally stood at rs. 20,000/- but later on increased to rs. 50,000/-divided into 250 shares of rs. 200/- each; that the entire share capital is fully paid up and the petitioners 1 to 14 are consequently fully paid-up share-holders; that the objects of the company are to exhibit cinema shows, carry on business in all kinds of language cinema films etc., that the number of share-holders is 27 including the petitioners; that when the company was originally started in 1942 by one k. tarini rao and two of his nominees, m. arjunam and v. ganapati, who subscribed to the memorandum with two shares each, k. tarini rao was hopelessly in debt to the extent of about rs. 8,000/-; that he had mortgaged his only residential house; that his shares which were first only 2, have now increased to 55; that he has managed to acquire by questionable means 82 shares in the name of his son .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-30-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Ori108; 1956CriLJ638
mohapatram, j.1. the we accused persons laikhan pradhan and ramchandra pradhan stand convicted under section 304, penal code, and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each. they have also been convicted under section 201, penal code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. the sentences are to run concurrently. the two appellants were charged undpr s. 302, penal code.2. the prosecution case la that deceased kartik pradhan was the brother of the two act cused persons. laikhan being the eldest, kartik the second and ramchandra the last brother. the three brothers were living separate but in the same khanja with a common courtyard.the cultivation however was joint. deceased kartik was an old convict. he had been convicted thrice in cases of theft or robbery and was a police survelle. the chowkidar used to check his presence at home every night. in the morning hours of 29-8-1953 the deceased had climbed up the thatch of neighbour nrupa bisi to steal some pumpkins grown on the thatch.the inmates of nrupa's house having raised an alarm, the deceased jumped down. the mothen of the deceased and his wife bhagabati (p. w. 9) having disapproved of the action of the deceased, he assaulted the mother. as the deceased further attempted to assault his wife bhagabati, she' sought the assistance of laikhan, laikhan having intervened was assaulted and ramchandra also shared the same fate. there was a scuffle as between the deceased and the two accused .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-20-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Ori179; 21(1955)CLT328
p.v.b. rao, j.1. this appeal in forma pauperis is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment arid decree of the learned additional subordinate judge of puri dismissing the suit for a declaration of his rights to the suit properties and for setting aside the mortgage decree and the court sale in favour of defendants 7 and 8 and for delivery of possession or in the alternative for a claim of rs. 16,000/- against all the defendants.2. the plaintiff's case is, briefly as follows: the suit properties were the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and his father defendant 9, and the latter mortgaged these properties to defendants 7 and, 8 for rs. 3200/- on 18-9-36. a suit for sale was filed by defendants 7 and 8 against defendant 9 on the said mortgage bond without impleading the plaintiff in original suit no. 9 of 1939 in the court of the subordinate judge, puri and in execution of the mortgage decree the suit properties were purchased by the decree-holders for a sum of about rs. 4000/-.the plaintiff alleges that the above said mortgage was not for legal necessity; that defendant 9 made false recitals in the mortgage deed; that the properties were mortgaged by defendant 9 for expenses incurred for his immoral habits and illegal purposes; that the properties at the time of sale were worth its. 20,000/- but were sold for the above amount of rs. 4000/-; and that defendants 7 and 8 did not implead the plaintiff in the mortgage suit.consequently the plaintiff contends that the .....Tag this Judgment!