In the first case, therefore, the claim of the appellant against the Maharaja and the State was Rs.
In the second case, the appellant advanced a sum of Rs.
This report was submitted to the Member Third , Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack, through the District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj.
1,37,785 13 7 1/2.
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.
The appellant alleges that the Maharaja promised to pay the amount.
50,000 and also incurred a further expenditure of Rs.
They arise out of two petitions under Art.
The provisions of this paragraph shall number apply to any claim against the State based on a cause of action which arose on or after the 1st January 1949 and such claim shall be disposed of in accordance with the laws applied or companytinued in force under paragraph 5.
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.
666 and 667 of 1957.
It was in these circumstances, that the two petitions under Art.
14,844 0 3.
From January 1, 1949, the Mayurbhanj State merged with the Province of Orissa, and on the same day, the Government of Orissa promulgated the Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949 under s. 4 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947 47 of 1947 .
14,844 0 3, and was also liable to be paid interest amounting to Rs.
The factory was companystructed, and, it appears, it went into production, but later closed down, suffering a total loss of Rs.
With reference to the establishment of the business, the appellant urges that it was agreed that the capital required would be companytributed by the parties in equal shares, and that the profit and loss would also be shared equally.
3,741 7 9.
The appellant preferred his two claims for the companysideration of the Claims Officer, who was dealing with such claims on behalf of the Administrator.
5,303 14 0.
with full particulars thereof and any claim presented after the expiration of such period shall be summarily rejected.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The Claims Officer made a report to the Administrator on June 20, 1951 in respect of the first claim, and after examining the merits, gave his companyclusions as follows Considering the evidence laid by the Claimant before me in support of his claim, I find that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.
Clause 9 of the Order, in so far as it is material, is as follows Claims against Ruler of the State.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. These two appeals raise a companymon question of law, and it is companyvenient to deal with them together.
2,80,875 9 3.
which the High Court of Orissa dismissed by its order under appeal.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and T. M. Sen, for the respondents.
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 foodgrains in the Punjab, and thus incurred a loss of Rs.
C. Chatterjee and G. C. Mathur, for the appellant.
1,40,400 odd.
The numberice shall also be published at such places and in such other manner as the Administrator may by special or general order direct.
667 of 1957, to the purchases of wheat and barley.
Every such claimant shall, within the period specified in sub paragraph a numberify to the said officer in writing his claim.
666 of 1957 relates to the establishment of the manufacturing business, and Civil Appeal No.
a The Administrator shall as soon as possible publish a numberification in the Gazette in English and in vernacular calling upon all persons having pecuniary claims, whether immediately enforceable or number, against the State or the Ruler of the State in his capacity as Ruler of that State, to numberify the same in writing to the officer authorised, by the Administrator in this behalf hereinafter called the said officer within three months from the date of the numberification.
On June 28, 1952, the appellant received a Memo randum from the Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack, which read as follows Dear Sri Agarwalla, With reference to your petitions dated 1 10 51 and 7 9 50.
226 of the Constitution, for writs of mandamus, etc.,
In furtherance of this agreement, the appellant urges that he established a factory and started the business, but the Maharaja, instead of companytributing his share of the capital, asked the appellant to do so on his behalf, promising to pay him the amount.
Civil Appeal No.
March 8.
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.
226 of the Constitution were filed.
