State Of Odisha And Others vs Larsen And Toubro Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 2721 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.P.(C) No.12002 Of 2022
                            (Through hybrid mode)

        State of Odisha and others              ....            Petitioners

                                                 Mr. D. Mohanty, AGA
                                     -versus-

        Larsen and Toubro Ltd.                  ....       Opposite Party

                                  Mr. Gautam Mishra, Senior Advocate


                 CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                   ORDER

Order                             19.05.2022
No.
  1.    1.      Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State (petitioners). He submits, order

no.19 dated 12th April, 2022 passed by Court of Senior Civil Judge

Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar (Executing Court) was made in

exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with materials irregularity. He

submits, said Court ought to have considered that his client has right to

exhaust civil remedy available by adjudication of the curative petition

filed by it in the Supreme Court.

2. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of

opposite party and relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Rahul

S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021)6 SCC 418 to

// 2 //

submit, thereby was declaration of law that execution proceeding

should be concluded within six months. He refers to order sheet

annexed in the petition to submit, first order passed by the Executing

Court was on 15th July, 2021.

3. Perused impugned order. There is recital that petitioners

challenged the award, thereafter filed appeal and carried its failure to

succeed, to the Supreme Court. On obtaining adjudication on their

civil appeal in the Supreme Court, petitioner preferred review. That

also went against it. Now they have filed curative petition. The

Executing Court said in impugned order that merely filing of curative

petition is not a ground to stay the further proceeding of the execution

petition and rejected petitioners' prayer for stay.

4. In circumstances aforesaid, Court does not find that the

executing Court proceeded in exercise of its jurisdiction, illegally or

there is material irregularity in impugned order.

5. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks