LAWS(ORI)-2002-1-11

MAHANADI MULTIPURPOSE INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On January 09, 2002
MAHANADI MULTIPURPOSE INDUSTRIES Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendants in a suit for recovery of money with interest thereon, filed by the plaintiff-State, on the basis that though paid for, the first defendant had not supplied the quantity of goods as agreed to; that a part of the amount was liable to be refunded; and that interest on the amount to be refunded was also to be paid by the first defendant @ 6% per annum from the date of demand for refund of the amount as contained in the letter dated 28-10-1965. The defendants resisted the suit. They resisted the claim of the plaintiffs by contending that they had supplied goods worth much more than the amount claimed by the plaintiffs, and that the balance amount due from the defendants, if any, was something less than that claimed in the plaint. They also contended that they were not liable for the suit claim in view of the fact that it was the plaintiffs that were guilty of breach of contract and in fact the defendants had incurred a loss by the inaction of the plaintiffs in not lifting the articles which the defendants were to supply in terms of the contract. The trial Court, on a consideration of the pleadings and the evidence adduced in the case, came to the conclusion that defendants had supplied articles which could be valued at Rs. 3,71,499.42 and the balance amount due to the plaintiffs out of the admitted sum of Rs. 6,46,938/- advanced by the plaintiffs towards execution of the contract and the value of the goods to be supplied, was Rs. 2,75,138.58. The trial Court thus found that a sum of Rs. 2,75,138.58 was refundable by the defendants. The trial Court hence decreed the suit in part. Though it held that the plaintiffs were entitled to interest, it did not award interest @ 6% on the sum determined from 28-12-1965 as claimed by the plaintiffs, but awarded interest only with effect from 1-11-1967 till the date of payment, since it held on the evidence that in terms of the contract, the defendants continued to supply materials, till the month of October, 1967.

(2.) Being aggrieved by this decree, the defendants have filed this appeal. During pendency of the suit, one of the partners had died, and during pendency of the appeal, the Managing Partner of first defendant - firm also died, and his legal representatives have been impleaded.

(3.) The plaintiff-State has filed a memorandum of cross-objections claiming that the trial Court ought not to have granted a decree to the plaintiffs as prayed for in the plaint, and ought not to have reduced the amount as it has done.