UDYOGSILPA PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal from the decree of the lower appellate Court reversing the decree of the trial Court and remanding the suit for a fresh disposal.

(2.) On 29-3-1966, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the State of Orissa to act as the Oil Miller Agent for one year for supplying oil and oilcakes after procuring mustared seeds and preparing oil. An interest-free loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- was advanced to the plaintiff on the condition that the amount would be adjusted towards the supply of mustard oil and oil-cakes. The contract was terminated with effect from the 28th March, 1967 by the Secretary, Supply Department. A certificate case bearing No. 220/70 was instituted against the plaintiff for realisation of Rs. 2,70,687-94 as the amount lying with the plaintiff unutilised together with interest, costs etc. In the certificate case as originally filed, the Collector was shown to be the Certificate Creditor. But subsequently it was amended and the Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Supply Department, Bhubaneswar was shown to be the certificate holder and the certificate case was re-numbered as 231 of 1972. On 27-6-1975, the plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from proceeding with the certificate case. It was alleged that the Govt. did not act according to the terms of the contract for which the plaintiff suffered heavy loss and from time to time claimed damages and ultimately filed a suit bearing O. S. No. 20 of 1970-III in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar for recovery of Rs. 5,83,097.14 paise. Thereafter the Certificate Case No. 220/70 was filed against the plaintiff as a counterblast to the suit filed by it. The plaintiff challenged the certificate proceeding on the ground that the amount even if due could not be realised as a public demand under the provisions of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962. It was also alleged that according to the terms of the contract the Secretary of the Supply Department could terminate the contract and assess the damages and demand the same from the plaintiff after proper accounting. But no accounting was made and the amount was assessed behind the back of the plaintiff in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The defendants filed written statement contending that the contract was terminated by the Secretary, Supply Department as per the terms of the agreement and that accounting was duly made in presence of the plaintiff.