Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Tasty Food Products – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Orissa State Council for Child Welfare – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the plaintiffs' appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of the plaintiff's claim. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. issues framed by the trial court. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. points determined by the first appellate court. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. plaintiff's arguments on appeal. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. summary of arguments heard. (Para 11) |
| 7. court's analysis of limitation issue. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. interpretation of section 14 of limitation act. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 9. court's reasoning affirming the trial court's decree. (Para 23 , 30) |
| 10. final decision of the appellate court. (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT :
This is a plaintiffs’ appeal against a reversing judgment. The suit of the plaintiff for realization of Rs.2,32,426/- from the defendant No.2 was decreed by the trial Court and reversed in appeal.
3. The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, is that it is a proprietary concern engaged in manufacturing and supply of bread (bun) having its factory at Rasulgarh in Bhubaneswar. Defendant No.2 is a registered society working under the administrative control of the Government in Department of Women and Child Development (defendant No.1). The plaintiff offered to supply bread to defendant no.2 meant for distribution am
In contractual disputes, pre-existing communications and legal proceedings can extend the limitation period, while evidence must be assessed on the preponderance of probabilities rather than strict s....
A cause of action based on an approved bill resets limitation; rejection of plaint under Rule 11 is unwarranted where factual disputes exist.
The court established that the dishonor of cheques and subsequent notice can affect the limitation period for filing a recovery suit under the Limitation Act.
(1) Preliminary issue – When issues of both law and facts arise in same suit, Court may dispose suit by trying issue of law first.(2) Money suit – Issue as to whether claim of appellant is barred by ....
Court upheld the trial court's ruling on limitation and interest, emphasizing ongoing commercial transactions while invalidating the claim for hand loan.
Point of Law : Arbitration - Since the claimant in this case has invoked section 60 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 61 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be invoked.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
