[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs M/S. Pratistha Engineering Ltd on 24 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1852 of 2025
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
-Versus-
M/s. Pratistha Engineering Ltd., .... Respondent
Bhubaneswar
Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 24.03.2026
04.
State and its functionaries in this Intra-Court appeal seek to
call in question a learned Single Judge's judgment dated
20.06.2025, whereby Respondent's W.P.(C) No.6634 of 2023
having been favoured, relief has been accorded as under:
"Accordingly, the Opposite Parties are directed to
pay interest to the Petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum on
the amount of ₹2.79 crore for the period from 29 June 2018
to 30 July 2021. The interest amount shall be paid within two
months from the date of receipt of this judgment. In case of
default, the said amount shall carry further interest at 9
percent per annum until actual payment."
2. Learned AGA, in his usual vehemence, submits that when
disputed facts were involved, the learned Single Judge ought to
have relegated the parties to the civil litigation under the
provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Further, learned
Single Judge grossly erred in awarding interest at a high rate of
9% per annum on the amount of Rs.2,79,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Crore Seventy-Nine Lakh) only for the period between
29.06.2018 and 30.07.2021. Lastly, the period of two months
prescribed by the learned Single Judge for making the payment
was very short. So submitting, he seeks intervention of this Court.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the sole Respondent resists
the Appeal contending that the same is not maintainable; the rate
of interest prescribed by the learned Single Judge perfectly
accords with the rates that obtained in the commercial
transactions of the kind and therefore, the learned Single Judge
has rightly prescribed the interest as the current rate of interest;
there is absolutely no dispute as to the delayed payment of the
amount and therefore, it is not a case involving disputed facts. So
contending, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having
perused the appeal papers, we grant marginal interference in this
matter as under and for the following reasons:
4.1. The first contention of learned AGA as to the involvement
of disputed facts does not impress us. Admittedly, the work has
been accomplished by the Respondent within the extended period
with no fault lying at its threshold. Merely because disputed facts
are involved, a Writ Court cannot send a scrupulous litigant back
home empty handed. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who
in DAVIS v. MILL, 194 US 451 (1904) has observed as under:
"Constitutions are intended to preserve practical and
substantial rights, not to maintain theories..."
The principle of disputed facts cannot be stretched too far. The
question is not whether there are disputed facts, but whether the
facts that are disputed can be ascertained from the material on
record. If dispute can be resolved based upon the evidentiary
material on record, Writ Court cannot shun away from
discharging its duties.
4.2. The essential fact matrix is that the Respondent, being the
Contractor, has accomplished the task within the extended period
with no complaints whatsoever. The work was accomplished on
27.06.2018, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that a sum of
Rs.2,79,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Seventy-Nine Lakh) only
that was due to the Respondent, was remitted to him belatedly. Of
course, this was after deduction of taxes & levies. Whatever that
be, the delayed payment has to be accompanied by interest. One
should have interest to pay the principal and nobody should say
that it is his principle not to pay the interest. Therefore, the
Government cannot say; "It is not my interest to pay the
principal, nor my principle to pay the interest". The impugned
order is inarticulately animated that way. Therefore, levy of
interest as such cannot be faltered.
4.3. The above being said, the rate of interest appears to be a bit
higher, keeping in view the Global trend towards declining rates
of interest on the money deposits. This aspect somehow has
escaped attention of the learned Single Judge. Had he adverted to
that factor, in our considered view, he would have awarded
interest at the rate of 7.25%. Accordingly, we downwardly revise
the rate of interest from 9% to 7.25%, keeping all other things in
the impugned judgment intact.
Ordered accordingly and Writ Appeal is disposed off. The
interest component at the altered rate shall be discharged within
an outer limit of eight (8) weeks, failing which rate of interest
awarded by the learned Single Judge in terms of the impugned
judgment stands revived.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of order to be acted upon all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
( Chittaranjan Dash )
Judge
Anisha
