State of Orissa and Anr. Vs.

Prathibha Prakash Bhavan

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

In the matter of,

STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR..

VERSUS

PRATHIBA PRAKASH BHAVAN

SUBMISSION TO,

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

8th October 2015.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE APPELLANT

Taruna Shandilya

Roll No. 180 , Semester- I

(COUNSEL FOR THE APPEALLANT)

1
 State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Prathibha Prakash Bhavan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………..…….3

Index of authorities…………………………………………….……………………………….…4

Statement of facts………………………………………………………………………................5

Issue raised………………………………………………………………………………….…….6

Summary of arguments…...………..…………………………….…………………………,,…...7

Written submission………….…………………………………….…………………….…..........8

Prayer……………………………………………………………………………………………..9

2
 State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Prathibha Prakash Bhavan

ABBREVIATIONS

 AIR All India Reported

 Art. Article

 Ed. Edition

 & And

 Hon’ble Honourable

 SC Supreme Court

 SCC Supreme Court Cases

 V. Versus

 Vol. Volume

 CPC Civil Procedure Code

3
 State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Prathibha Prakash Bhavan

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASE

 Orissa Cement Limited, Rajgangpur v. India Fire Bricks and Insulation Co. Ltd., ILR
(1972) Cut 1111

 Prag Oil Mills Depot v. Transport Corporation of India (1978) 1 Cut WR 234 AIR 1978
Orissa 167

BOOKS REFERRED

 Avtar Singh (9th Edition)

 R.K BANGIA,INDIAN CONTRACT ACT

STATUES

 Bare Act (The Indian Contract Act, 1872)

WEBSITES

 www.manupatra.com

 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/638193/

4
 State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Prathibha Prakash Bhavan

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Commercial – Place of agreement and jurisdiction – Section 3 and 4, Indian Contract Act, 1872 –
Suit giving rise to present appeal, filed by Respondent for alleged failure of Appellant in paying
for goods supplied under agreement between Respondent and Appellant –Trial court decreed suit
and hence present appeal – Whether court at Berhampur had jurisdiction to entertain suit – Held,
if offer and acceptance, completed earlier and placing of order is only formality , jurisdiction of
court would be where agreement completed by acceptance – As Defendants have not made out
any case of earlier acceptance, placing of order can be treated to be offer by Defendants and
acceptance of such offer complete contract – offer having been sent by post, place of contract
and court at place of contract can entertain suit for recovery of consideration money – Order sent
by post from Hemgiri, received at Berhampur for acceptance by Plaintiff and accordingly goods
transported from Berhampur, Berhampur Court has jurisdiction to entertain suit – Other grounds
having failed, decree upheld except that as Plaintiff tolerate Defendants till filing suit, not
entitled to interest till date of filing of suit – Appeal partially allowed.

5
 State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Prathibha Prakash Bhavan

ISSUE RAISED

CONTENTION - I

Whether the respondent is liable to pay interest on the Principal amount to be refunded by them?

6
 State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Prathibha Prakash Bhavan

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Respondent is liable to pay interest on the Principal amount to be

refunded by them.

They have utilized the money being paid as part consideration to the
Defendants in its business of supply of articles. Therefore, award of
interest in the judgment against the principal amount up to the date of the
institution of the suit at 12% and 6% thereafter from the date of institution
of case till the date of payment is legal and valid as the said amount has
been utilized by the Defendants in the supply of articles business but they
have failed to prove not obtaining the whole supply in respect of the
packets agreed upon to be supplied in favour of the appellant to the extent
of area for which permission was granted by the State Government. The
award of interest on the principal amount and decreetal amount in the
impugned judgment is perfectly justifiable on the basis of the facts and
circumstances of the case.

7
 State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Prathibha Prakash Bhavan

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

 Section 65 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 – According to Section 65 under the financial rules,
Block Development Officer had no jurisdiction to place orders for such huge quantity of articles. If the
Block Development Officer would have absolutely no jurisdiction under the Statute, I would have
ignored the placing of orders by him or receipt of goods to bind defendant No. 1. It is not the case of
defendant No. 1 that Block Development Officer has received the goods in his personal capacity. Goods
were received for being used officially in the block. Such goods were not intended to be handed over by
plaintiff gratuitously. If Block Development Officer was not authorised, defendant No. 1 could have
informed plaintiff to take back the goods. There is no such intention. When goods were received and
were used for official purpose and at no stage plaintiff was intimated to take back the goods on account
of violation of financial discipline by Block Development Officer, both defendants are liable to pay the
price of goods as provided under Section 65 of the Contract Act. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to the
price of 6 packets of goods which amounts to Rupees 36,100/- and defendants are liable to pay the same.

 Article 299 in The Constitution Of India 1949 - According to Art. 299 of the Constitution it is
provided that in respect of Government contracts, agreements are to be in writing and the place where
written contract is to be executed is the place of contract. Thus, Hemgiri should have been held to be the
place of contract and cause of action would arise at Hemgiri in Sundargarh District. If the rules would
have been produced by defendants, there would have been scope to examine this question. No such rule
has been produced. In this case, there is no written contract. Block Development Officer placed the
order by post. In absence of any material, order sent by post from Hemgiri having been received at
Berhampur to be accepted by plaintiff on basis of which, goods were transported through common
carrier from Berhampur, Berhampur Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

 Section 34 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 - According to Section 34 the interest is not payable on
this amount as there is no stipulation for payment of interest. Normally, plaintiff being a businessman
who has suffered on account of detention of money would be entitled to damages. But the
correspondences in this case indicate that plaintiff tolerated defendants till he filed a suit. Therefore,
plaintiff is not entitled to interest till the date of filing of the suit. Decree to this extent is reversed.
Question of future interest, however, stand on a different footing. Trial Court has decreed interest @ 6%
per annum. This is justified under Section 34, C.P.C. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to interest at 6% per
annum in future.
8
 State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Prathibha Prakash Bhavan

PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Hon’ble court may be
pleased to adjudge and declare that:

 The petition should dismissed.

Or to pass any other order, which this court may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Place: India Taruna Shandilya

Date: 8th October 2015. Council for the Appellant