JAGANNATH AGARWALA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
LAWS(SC)-1961-3-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on March 08,1961

JAGANNATH AGARWALA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MURLIDHAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1963-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
M MADHU BABU VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. CH JAWAHIRLAL BATAI SAO [LAWS(MPH)-1962-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM BHAGWANDAS SHOBHALAL JAIN A REGISTERED FIRM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1964-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1963-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
QUCXOVA SINAL CUNDO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1997-6-52] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SAURASHTRA NOW GUJARAT STATE OF SAURASHTRA NOW GUJARAT STATE OF SAURASHTRA NOW GUJARAT VS. JAMADAR MOHAMAD ABDULLA:SALEM BIN MAHMED HINDI:BAI CHATUMA ABDULKHANMIYA [LAWS(SC)-1961-10-11] [APPLIED]
PROMOD CHANDRA DEB BADA KUMAR PRATAP GANGADEB HER HIGHNESS MAHA RAJMATA SURATARANGINI DEBI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1961-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. VORA FIDDALI BADRUDDIN MITHIBARWALA:VORA HAKIMUDDIN TAYABALI AMTHANIWALA:VORA FIDDALI BADRUDDIN MITHIBARWALA:MEHTA KANTILAL CHANDULAL:PATHAN ABBASKHAN AHMEDKHAN [LAWS(SC)-1964-1-4] [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. R B CHANDRACHUD [LAWS(SC)-1968-11-24] [APPLIED]
VINODKUMAR SHANTILAL GOSALIA VS. GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGARWAL [LAWS(SC)-1981-8-20] [RELIED]
DRAUPADI DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2004-9-129] [REFERRED TO]
GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LIMITED VS. AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-233] [REFERRED TO]
YUVRAJ PRITHVIRAJSINHJI S/O MAHARAO MADANSINHJI VS. MAHARANI RAJENDRA KUNVARBA SAHEB [LAWS(GJH)-2010-7-590] [REFERRED TO]
M V RAMAN VS. C K VENUGOPALAN [LAWS(KER)-1991-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
O T G GLOBAL FINANCE LTD COMPANY VS. MOHAN MANDELIA [LAWS(MPH)-2011-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
B RAJEGOWDA VS. H B SHANKAREGOWDA [LAWS(KAR)-2005-9-111] [REFERRED]
RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISES VS. KAVITA SARAFF [LAWS(CAL)-2021-12-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These two appeals raise a common question of law, and it is convenient to deal with them together. They have been filed (with certificate) against a judgment of the High Court of Orissa, by Jagannath Agarwala, who sought to enforce a claim he had against the former State of Mayurbhanj and the ex-Ruler of Mayurbhanj. They arise out of two petitions under; Art. 226 of the Constitution, for writs of mandamus, etc., which the High Court of Orissa dismissed by its order under appeal.
(2.)It appears that in the year 1943 the Maharaja of Mayurbhanj entered into an agreement or arrangement with Jagannath Agarwala for establishing a business for the manufacture of industrial alcohol and essential oils and for purchases of wheat and barley in the Punjab, Civil Appeal No. 666 of 1957 relates to the establishment of the manufacturing business, and Civil Appeal No. 667 of 1957, to the purchases of wheat and barley. With reference to the establishment of the business, the appellant urged that it was agreed that the capital required would be contributed by the parties in equal shares, and that the profit and loss would also be shared equally. As regards the purchases, the appellant was to advance such money as might be required, and the State of Mayurbhanj was to provide necessary permits and facilities for transport.
(3.)In furtherance of this agreement, the appellant urges that he established a factory and started the business, but the Maharaja, instead of contributing his share of the capital, asked the appellant to do so on his behalf, promising to pay him the amount. The factory was constructed, and, it appears, it went into production, but later closed down, suffering a total loss of Rs. 2,80,875-9-3. In the first case.
therefore, the claim of the appellant against the Maharaja and the State was RS. 1,40,400/- and odd. In the second case, the appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and also incurred a further expenditure of Rs. 3,741-7-9. The State of Mayurbhanj failed in its promise of procuring the necessary permits and facilities for transport, and the appellant was, therefore, required to sell the food-grains in the Punjab, and thus incurred a loss of Rs. 14,844-0-3. The appellant alleges that the Maharaja promised to pay the amount.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.