State v. Pratibha
Case brief
What is this about?
This is a second appeal filed by the State against a decree confirming a trial court judgment. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Berhampur had territorial jurisdiction and the defendants were liable to pay dues with interest and damages as per the contract.
What did the court decide?
The appeal is dismissed. The suit decree in favor of the plaintiff is confirmed. No order as to costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.A. No.195 of 1988
State of Odisha & Another
…. Appellants Mr. J.P. Patra, ASC
-Versus-
Pratibha Prakash Bhawan …. Respondent Mr. P.V. Balkrishna, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF JUDGMENT:19.12.2023
1 . Instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is at the behest of the appellants assailing the correctness of the judgment promulgated in Money Appeal No.4 of 1988 by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, whereby, the impugned decision in M.S. No.6 of 1985 of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Berhampur was confirmed on the ground stated that the same are not tenable in law and hence, therefore, liable to be set aside.
2 . The suit was instituted for recovery of dues payable by the appellants with the interest, cost and damages at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till its realization. The appellants contested the suit on the ground of absence of territorial jurisdiction and with regard to the liability to pay the cost and damages in the shape of interest as claimed by the plaintiff. Considering the pleadings on the record, learned Trial court framed three issues and finally decreed the suit rejecting the plea of the appellants on jurisdiction and other grounds and directed them to pay the dues with cost and allowed pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum till its recovery on
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Does the supplier at Berhampur have territorial jurisdiction over a suit for recovery of dues where goods were delivered to the defendant at Rairakhol without a specific place of contract stipulation?
Is the High Court justified in dismissing the second appeal against the decree confirming the lower courts' findings on jurisdiction and payment of interest and damages?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
State of Odisha
- appellant
Another
- respondent
Pratibha Prakash Bhawan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court