{"id":160723,"date":"1961-03-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-03-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961"},"modified":"2018-06-17T20:39:09","modified_gmt":"2018-06-17T15:09:09","slug":"jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961","title":{"rendered":"Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1361, \t\t 1962 SCR (1) 205<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJAGANNATH AGARWALA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ORISSA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n08\/03\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1361\t\t  1962 SCR  (1) 205\n CITATOR INFO :\n APL\t    1962 SC 445\t (21,35)\n R\t    1962 SC1288\t (7)\n R\t    1964 SC1043\t (19,69,93,95,117,137)\n R\t    1971 SC 846\t (7)\n RF\t    1981 SC1946\t (18)\n\n\nACT:\nAct  of\t State--Duration  of--State allowing  claims  to  be\npreferred  and\tenquired  into--Act  of\t State,\t if  at\t  an\nend--Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949, cl. 9.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant had two money claims against the Maharaja  of\nMayurbhanj  State.  From January 1, 1949, the  State  merged\nwith the Province of Orissa.  Clause 9 of the Administration\nof   Mayurbhanj\t State\tOrder,\t1949,  promulgated  by\t the\nGovernment  of\tOrissa,\t provided  for\tthe  issuing  of   a\nnotification  for calling upon all persons having  pecuniary\nclaims against the Maharaja to notify the same to an officer\nauthorised in that behalf.  After issue of the\tnotification\nthe  appellant\tpreferred his two claims  before  the-Claims\nOfficer.   The\tClaims Officer made a  report  substantially\naccepting  the\tclaims.\t This report was  submitted  to\t the\nMember (third), Board of Revenue.  Without giving the appel-\nlant any hearing the claims were rejected on the ground that\nthey were barred by limitation.\t The appellant applied for a\nreview\tand submitted the documents on which he\t relied\t but\nagain  without giving the appellant a hearing the  Board  of\nRevenue\t declined  to  review  the  matter.   The  appellant\ncontended\n206\nthat there was a breach of the principles of natural justice\nin  the Board of Revenue deciding the matter without  giving\nthe  appellant a proper hearing.  The  respondent  contended\nthat  the rejection of the claims was an act of State,\tthat\nthe new Sovereign State could not be compelled by the courts\nto  accept the liability of the old Ruler, that\t though\t the\nnew  Sovereign State might make such enquiry as it chose  it\nwas  not compelled to give a hearing to the appellant.\t The\nappellant  replied that the act of State was over  when\t the\nclaims were invited and accepted by the Claims Officer.\nHeld,  that the rejection of the claims was an act of  State\nand  could  not be challenged.\tUnless\tthe  new  Sovereign,\neither\texpressly  or impliedly, admitted  the\tclaims,\t the\nmunicipal courts had no jurisdiction in the matter.  The act\nof State did not come to an end when Government allowed\t the\nclaims\tto  be\tpreferred or the  Claims  Officer  made\t his\nreport.\t  The enquiry was for the benefit of the  State\t and\nnot for conferring rights on the claimants.  Till there\t was\nan  acceptance\tof  the claims by  the\tGovernment  or\tsome\nofficer who could be said to bind the Government, the act of\nState was still open.\nDalmia,Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of\t Income-tax,<\/a>\n[1959] S.C.R- 729 State of Saurashtra  v. Mmemon Haji Ismail\nHaji,<\/a> [1960] 1 S.C.R. 537 and Vaje Singh ji joravar Singh v.\nSecretary  of  State  for India, (1924) L.R.  51  I.A.\t357,\nrelied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 666 and 667
\nof 1957.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C. Chatterjee and G. C. Mathur, for the appellant.
\nA.   V. Viswanatha-Sastri, K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and T. M.
\nSen, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
1961.  March 8. The judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHIDAYATULLAH,  J.-These two appeals raise a common  question
\nof  law,  and it is convenient to deal with  them  together.
\nThey  have been filed (with certificate) against a  judgment
\nof  the\t High Court of Orissa, by  Jagannath  Agarwala,\t who
\nsought to enforce a claim he had against the former State of
\nMayurbhanj  and the ex-Ruler of Mayurbhanj.  They arise\t out
\nof  two\t petitions under Art. 226 of the  Constitution,\t for
\nwrits  of  mandamus, etc., which the High  Court  of  Orissa
\ndismissed by its order under appeal.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that in the year 1943 the Maharaja, of
\n207<\/span>
\nMayurbhanj  entered  into an agreement or  arrangement\twith
\nJagannath  Agarwala  for  establishing a  business  for\t the
\nmanufacture of industrial alcohol and essential oils and for
\npurchases  of wheat and barley in the Punjab.  Civil  Appeal
\nNo.  666  of  1957  relates  to\t the  establishment  of\t the
\nmanufacturing business, and Civil Appeal No. 667 of 1957, to
\nthe  purchases of wheat and barley.  With reference  to\t the
\nestablishment  of the business, the appellant urges that  it
\nwas agreed that the capital required would be contributed by
\nthe  parties in equal shares, and that the profit  and\tloss
\nwould also be shared equally.  As regards the purchases, the
\nappellant  was to advance such money as might  be  required,
\nand the State of Mayurbhanj was to provide necessary permits
\nand facilities for transport.\n<\/p>\n
In  furtherance of this agreement, the appellant urges\tthat
\nhe  established a factory and started the business, but\t the
\nMaharaja, instead of contributing his share of the  capital,
\nasked the appellant to do so on his behalf, promising to pay
\nhim  the  amount.   The factory\t was  constructed,  and,  it
\nappears,  it  went into production, but later  closed  down,
\nsuffering  a total loss of Rs. 2,80,875-9-3.  In  the  first
\ncase,  therefore,  the claim of the  appellant\tagainst\t the
\nMaharaja and the State was Rs. 1,40,400 odd.  In the  second
\ncase,  the appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 50,000  and\talso
\nincurred a further expenditure of Rs. 3,741-7-9.  The  State
\nof  Mayurbhanj\tfailed\tin  its\t promise  of  procuring\t the
\nnecessary  permits  and facilities for\ttransport,  and\t the
\nappellant was, therefore, required to sell the foodgrains in
\nthe Punjab, and thus incurred a loss of Rs. 14,844-0-3.\t The
\nappellant  alleges  that the Maharaja promised\tto  pay\t the
\n‘amount.\n<\/p>\n
From  January 1, 1949, the Mayurbhanj State merged with\t the
\nProvince  of Orissa, and on the same day, the Government  of
\nOrissa\tpromulgated the Administration of  Mayurbhanj  State
\nOrder, 1949 under s. 4 of the Extra Provincial\tJurisdiction
\nAct,  1947 (47 of 1947).  That Order allowed claims  against
\nthe  State of Mayurbhanj to be preferred to  Government\t for
\nits
\n208<\/span>
\nconsideration.\t Clause 9 of the Order, in so far as  it  is
\nmaterial, is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “9. Claims against Ruler of the State. (a) The
\n\t      Administrator   shall  as\t soon  as   possible
\n\t      publish  a  notification\tin  the\t Gazette  in
\n\t      English  and  in vernacular calling  upon\t all
\n\t      persons\thaving\tpecuniary  claims,   whether
\n\t      immediately  enforceable or not,\tagainst\t the
\n\t      State  or\t the  Ruler  of\t the  State  in\t his
\n\t      capacity as Ruler of that State, to notify the
\n\t      same in writing to the officer authorised,  by
\n\t      the Administrator in this behalf\t(hereinafter
\n\t      called  the said officer) within three  months
\n\t      from the date of the notification.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   The\t notice shall also be  published  at
\n\t      such  places and in such other manner  as\t the
\n\t      Administrator may by special or general  order
\n\t      direct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   Every  such claimant shall,\t within\t the
\n\t      period  specified in sub-paragraph (a)  notify
\n\t      to the said officer in writing his claim. with
\n\t      full   particulars  thereof  and\t any   claim
\n\t      presented after the expiration of such  period
\n\t      shall be summarily rejected.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   Every  document  including\tentries.  in
\n\t      book.%  of  account in the  possession  of  or
\n\t      under the control of the claimant on which  he
\n\t      bases  his claim shall be produced before\t the
\n\t      said  officer along with the statement of\t the
\n\t      claim:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (f)   Nothing in the preceding  sub-paragraphs
\n\t      shall   apply  to\t any  pecuniary\t  claim\t  of
\n\t      Government or any\t local\tauthority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (g)   The said officer shall after making such
\n\t      enquiry  as  he  may deem\t fit,  decide  which
\n\t      claims notified under sub-paragraph (c) are to
\n\t      be  allowed in whole or in part and which\t are
\n\t      to  be disallowed, and on his  decision  being
\n\t      confirmed\t by  the  Administrator,  the\tsaid
\n\t      officer shall give written notice of the\tsame
\n\t      to   the\tclaimants.   The  decision  of\t the
\n\t      Administrator shall be final and shall not  be
\n\t      liable.  to  be called into  question  in\t any
\n\t      Court whatsoever..’\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (h)   No\tcourt  shall  have  jurisdiction  to
\n\t      investigate
\n\t      209<\/span>
\n\t      any  pecuniary  claim  against  the  State  or
\n\t      against the Ruler of the State in his capacity
\n\t      as Ruler of that State and such claim shall be
\n\t      determined   only\t in  accordance\t  with\t the
\n\t      provisions of this paragraph.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   The\t  Administrator\t may  delegate\t his
\n\t      powers  under  this paragraph to\tany  officer
\n\t      subordinate  to him not below the rank  of  an
\n\t      Additional District Magistrate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (j)   The\t provisions of this paragraph  shall
\n\t      not  apply  to any  claim\t against  the  State
\n\t      based on a     cause of action which arose  on
\n\t      or  after the 1st January 1949 and such  claim
\n\t      shall  be disposed of in accordance  with\t the
\n\t      laws  applied  or\t continued  in\tforce  under
\n\t      paragraph 5.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The appellant preferred his two claims for the consideration
\nof  the Claims Officer, who was dealing with such claims  on
\nbehalf\tof  the Administrator.\tThe Claims  Officer  made  a
\nreport\tto the Administrator on June 20, 1951 in respect  of
\nthe  first claim, and after examining the merits,  gave\t his
\nconclusions as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Considering the evidence laid by the Claimant
\n\t      before me in support of his claim, I find that
\n\t      he is entitled to a sum of Rs.  1,37,785-13-7-
\n\t      1\/2.   It has been urged by the Claimant\tthat
\n\t      interest @ Rs. 4 per cent. per annum should be
\n\t      allowed  to him till the date of repayment  of
\n\t      his  dues.  He has been allowed interest\tfrom
\n\t      1-4-43 to 28-2-49 and,, I think, he should get
\n\t      interest\tthereafter  @ Rs. 4  per  cent.\t per
\n\t      annum till the date of repayment of his  dues.
\n\t      As  regards  the Claimant’s  demand  for\thalf
\n\t      share of further advances made by the Claimant
\n\t      after filing of this claim case, it cannot  be
\n\t      entertained in this case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Submitted to the Revenue Commissioner, Orissa,
\n\t      Cuttack\tthrough\t the  District\t Magistrate,
\n\t      Mayurbhanj  as required under Clause  9(g)  of
\n\t      the Administration of Mayurbhanj State  Order,
\n\t      1949.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the other case, he made a report on November 5, 1951 that
\nthe appellant had substantiated his claim for Rs.  14,844-0-
\n3, and was also liable to be paid interest amounting to\t Rs.
\n5,303-14-0.  This report was
\n27<\/span>
\n210<\/span>
\nsubmitted  to the Member (Third), Board of Revenue,  Orissa,
\nCuttack, through the District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj.
\nOn  June  28, 1952, the appellant received a  Memo    randum
\nfrom  the  Deputy  Secretary,  Board  of  Revenue,   Orissa,
\nCuttack, which read as’ follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Dear Sri Agarwalla,
\nWith  reference to your petitions dated 1-10-51 and  7-9-50.
\nI  am directed to say that the claims have been rejected  as
\nGovernment  have  been\tadvised\t that  they  are  barred  by
\nlimitation.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t  Yours sincerely,
\n\t\t\t\tSd. Govind Tripathy”.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that the appellant applied for review, and he was
\nasked  on November 8, 1952 to produce before the  Board\t any
\ndocument  or documents in his possession to show that  these
\nwere  continuing  businesses and also to point out  the\t law
\nthat  no claim of a continuing business could be  barred  by
\nlimitation.  The documents on which the appellant presumably
\nrelied before the Board of Revenue have not been printed  in
\nthe  record  of\t this  Court, but  on  April  2,  1953,\t the
\nsolicitors of the appellant were informed that the Board  of
\nRevenue had declined to review the matter.  It appears\talso
\nthat, in the first case, even before the merger the  Revenue
\nMinister,  Mayurbhanj  State,  had rejected  the  claim\t put
\nforward\t by  the appellant by his order\t dated\tOctober\t 26,
\n1948, to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  State need not recognise the claims\t put
\n\t      forward  by  Mr. J. Agarwalla,  as  there\t was
\n\t      really no formation of any Joint Stock Company
\n\t      nor  any\twritten agreement entered  into\t and
\n\t      finally settled.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t  Sd. B. Mohapatra
\n\t\t\t   (Revenue Minister, Mayurbhanj)”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was in these circumstances, that the two petitions  under
\nArt.  226  of the Constitution were filed.  The\t High  Court
\ndismissed  them.   From\t the order of  the  High  Court,  it
\nappears\t that  two points alone were urged before  it.\t The
\nfirst was that the decision of the
\n211<\/span>
\nClaims Officer should have gone to the Board of Revenue as a
\nwhole and not to a single Member and the second was that the
\nappellant should have been served with a notice by the Board
\nbefore\tthe  recommendations  of  the  Claims  Officer\twere
\nrejected,  and,\t as has now been argued before\tthis  Court,
\nallowed a hearing.\n<\/p>\n
The first point was not argued before us, and it seems\tthat
\nthe  appellant has accepted the decision of the\t High  Court
\nthat  the Third Member was competent to hear and dispose  of
\nthese  cases.  The second point alone has been argued,\tand.
\nneeds  to be considered.  The case was argued by Mr.  N.  C.
\nChatterjee  on\tbehalf of the appellant\t as  illustrating  a
\npatent\tbreach\tof the principles of  natural  justice.\t  He
\ncontended  that his client was entitled to a proper  hearing
\nbefore\tthe  report in his favour was rejected,\t and  relied
\nupon  the following cases: Shivji Nathubai v. The  Union  of
\nIndia<\/a>  (1),  New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v.\tNew  Suwarna
\nTransport   Co.\t Ltd.<\/a>  (2),  Nagendra  Nath  Bora   v.\t The
\nCommissioner  of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam<\/a>  (3)\t and
\nGullapalli  Nageswara  Rao  v. Andhra  Pradesh\tState,\tRoad
\nTransport  Corporation<\/a> (4).  In reply, Mr. A. V.  Viswanatha
\nSastri contended that the rejection of the claim was an\t act
\nof  State,  and that the new Sovereign State  could  not  be
\ncompelled  by a process of the municipal courts to accept  a
\nliability  of  the old Ruler, and though the  new  Sovereign
\nState  might  make  such enquiry as it\tchose,\tit  was\t not
\ncompelled  to  give  a\thearing to  the\t claimant.   In\t his
\nrejoinder, Mr.Chatterjee contended that the act of State was
\nover,  when the new Sovereign State invited claims  under  a
\nlaw  passed for the purpose, and proceeded to  consider\t the
\nevidence tendered in support of the claim He also  contended
\nthat by the admission of the claim by the Claims Officer the
\nact of State was over, and that any further consideration of
\nthe report had to comply with the rules of natural  justice,
\nlaid down by this Court in the cases cited by him.
\nWhat is an act of State and when it ceases to apply  between
\na new Sovereign and the subjects of a State
\n(1)  [1960] 2 S.C.R. 775.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1958] S.C.R. 1240.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1957] S.C.R. 98.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 319.\n<\/p>\n
212<\/span><\/p>\n
conquered, acquired or ceded to the new Sovereign, has\tbeen
\nthe  subject  of several decisions of this Court.   In\tM\/s.
\nDalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of  Income-<\/a>
\ntax  (1) and The State of Saurashtra v. Memon\tHaji  Ismail
\nHaji<\/a>  (2), it has been held that unless the  new  Sovereign,
\neither\texpressly  or  impliedly   admits  the\tclaim.,\t the
\nmunicipal  courts have no jurisdiction in the  matter.\t The
\nquestion  to  consider\tis whether such\t a  stage  had\tbeen
\nreached in the enquiry which had been commenced.  No  doubt,
\nthe  plea  that this was a part of an act of State  was\t not
\nspecifically  raised before the High Court; but, as  pointed
\nout  by\t the Judicial Committee’ in Vale  Singh\t Ji  Joravar
\nSingh v. Secretary of State for India (3), no plea is really
\nneeded.\t  It is clear from the Order, which was\t made  under
\nthe  Extra  Provincial Jurisdiction Act,  that\tclaims\twere
\nbeing asked to be entertained only for investigation and not
\nfor  acceptance.   It is the acceptance of the\tclaim  which
\nwould  have  bound the new Sovereign State and\tthe  act  of
\nState  would  then  have come to an end.  But  short  of  an
\nacceptance,  either  express or implied, the  time  for\t the
\nexercise of the sovereign right to reject a claim was  still
\nopen.\tIn Vaje Singh Ji’s case (3), enquiries were made  by
\nCaptain\t Buckle\t and again in 1868, and\t the  two  enquiries
\nlasted 16 years before the rejection of the claims, and\t the
\nrejection  was still upheld as an act of State.\t Vaje  Singh
\nJi’s case (3) has been relied upon by this Court in the\t two
\ncases  referred to, in the argument of Mr. A. V.  Viswanatha
\nSastri.\t  It would, therefore, appear that the act of  State
\ncould  not  be\tsaid  to  have come  to\t an  end,  when\t the
\nGovernment allowed claims to be preferred, or when their own
\nOfficer made his report.  The Claims Officer was not a\tpart
\nof  the municipal courts, and Government cannot be  said  to
\nhave  submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the  municipal
\ncourts,\t when it entrusted the enquiry to him.\tNor can\t the
\ninvestigation  of claims be said to have conferred  a  civil
\nright upon the claimants to enforce their claims against the
\nState.\t In our opinion, enquiry was for the benefit of\t the
\nState and not
\n(1) [1959] S.C.R. 729.\t       (2) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 537.
\n(3) (1924) L.R. 51 I.A. 357.\n<\/p>\n
213<\/span><\/p>\n
for conferring rights upon likely claimants.  It was  always
\nopen  to  the  Government to admit any\tclaim,\teven  though
\nreported  adversely  by the Claims Officer,  though  such  a
\ncontingency   might   have  been  very\t remote.    Equally,
\ntherefore, the Government had the paramount right to  reject
\na  claim,  which its Claims Officer considered good  but  on
\nwhich  the Government held a different opinion.\t  In  short,
\ntill  there  was  an acceptance by the\tGovernment  or\tsome
\nofficer\t of  the Government, who could be said to  bind\t the
\nGovernment,  the  act of State was still open, and,  in\t our
\nopinion, it was so exercised in this case.
\nMr.  Chatterjee\t contended  that at least  within  the\tfour
\ncorners of the Order, the appellant had a right to be heard,
\nand  that he did not have a proper bearing.  If the  Member,
\nBoard  of  Revenue, entertained some doubt about  the  claim
\nbeing within time, he might have heard the party.  That this
\nwas an enquiry mainly to ascertain whether a claim should or
\nshould\tnot be recognised is obvious enough.  It was  in  no
\nsense  a  trial of any issue between the appellant  and\t the
\nGovernment.   To judge such an action with the\tsame  rigour
\nwith  which  a\tjudicial enquiry or trial is  judged  is  to
\nconvert\t the enquiry into a civil suit.\t The  appellant\t was
\nfully heard by the Claims Officer, and the only question was
\nwhether the claim was within time.  Even there, the  Member,
\nBoard  of  Revenue,  asked  the\t appellant  to\tsubmit\t all
\ndocuments  and arguments in support of his  contention\tthat
\nthe  claim  was within limitation, and to that\textent,\t the
\nappellant had his say.\tWhether the Member, Board of Revenue
\nshould have gone further and given a viva voce hearing was a
\nmatter\tentirely for that Officer to choose, and  there\t was
\nnothing\t under the law to compel him.  Though we think\tthat
\nsuch  an  opportunity  might  have  been  afforded  to\t the
\nappellant,  we\tcannot\tsay that this  was  a  matter  which
\nentitled him to a writ.\n<\/p>\n
In  this  view\tof the matter, the  appeals  fail,  and\t are
\ndismissed.   But,  in the circumstances of the\tcase,  there
\nshall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t     Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
214<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1361, 1962 SCR (1) 205 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: JAGANNATH AGARWALA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/03\/1961 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. KAPUR, J.L. SHAH, J.C. CITATION: 1961 AIR 1361 1962 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160723","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-17T15:09:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-17T15:09:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961\"},\"wordCount\":2582,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961\",\"name\":\"Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-17T15:09:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-17T15:09:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961","datePublished":"1961-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-17T15:09:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961"},"wordCount":2582,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961","name":"Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-17T15:09:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-agarwala-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-march-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160723","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=160723"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160723\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}