M/S. George Distributors Pvt. Ltd vs The Industrial Development
2023 Latest Caselaw 1179 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                EXP No.7 OF 2022


            M/s. George Distributors Pvt. Ltd.     ....          Petitioner(s)
                                                        Mr.S.K.Dash,Adv.
                                                        Mr.S.Rout,Adv.
                                                        Mr.J.K.Surana,Adv.
                                                        Mr.D.Dinda,Adv.
                                        -versus-

            The Industrial Development             ....    Opposite Party(s)
            Corporation of Odisha Limited,              Mr.S.P.Panda,AGA
            Bhubaneswar and others


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            03.02.2023
   02.       1.     Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

2. At the threshold a doubt is raised as to entertainability of the Execution of the proceeding involving the order and/or judgment of the Company Court herein in High Court. To satisfy his claim, Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to Section 634 of the Company Act, 1956 reads as follows:-

"634. Enforcement of orders of Court- Any order made by a court under this Act may be enforced in the same manner as a decree made by the Court in a suit pending therein".

3. Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits since the order involved herein is of the Company Court in special assignment to this Court, this Court's order needs execution in this Court itself. Mr.Dash, learned counsel also to substantiate his submission refers to a judgement of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Coastal

// 2 //

Roadways Ltd. Versus Kanoi Plantation (P) Ltd. reported in 2005 SCC Online Cal 120/ (2006) 132 Comp Cas 503/ (2005) 69 CLA 282/ 2005 CLC 1377 and in reference to para-10, his submission for execution for undertaking the execution proceeding in terms of Section 634 of the Act and by the High Court itself gets through para-10 and 15 therein which observation in the above judgment reads as follows:-

10. Therefore, I hold that the execution proceedings are maintainable for enforcement of this order. The language of section 634 of the said Act is quite clear in this regard. This section is reproduced hereunder:

"Section 634. Enforcement of orders of courts.- Any order made by a court under this Act may be enforced in the same manner as a decree made by the court in a suit pending therein.

15. Therefore, the court means the company court and this court has exclusive jurisdiction to pass any order including enforcement of the order passed by it. If for any reason the order passed by one company court cannot be enforced under the company court not by any other court. The definition of the court (section

10) under the said Act is not intended to mean and include the civil court. In fact, it will appear under section 446 that after winding up order is passed or official liquidator, it is the company court which has got exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding by or against the company. Therefore, in my opinion reading as a whole as regard jurisdiction of the company court the authority of any other court for any matter is excluded except in case of enforcement of order passed by the Company Law Board. In this respect special provision under section 634A of the said Act, has been provided."

To substantiate his submission, Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Biranchi Narayan Das & Others reported in (2017) 123 CLT 589 which judgment has been confirmed in Hon'ble

// 3 //

apex Court in SLP Civil No.4464 of 2017 decided on 08.02.2017 reported in 2017 (I) OLR (SC) 975.

4. Reading through paragraphs-14 & 15 then 22 also this Court finds, prima facie case satisfied on the claim of Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Execution Petition in this circumstance lies to this Court. This Court is accordingly directs for issuing notice to the Opposite Parties on the execution of order aspects.

5. Since Opposite Party No. (c) will be represented by learned State Counsel, one extra copy of the brief be served on him within three working days.

6. Notice be issued to Opposite Party Nos. (b) and (d) by way of Speed Post/ Registered Post with A.D., fixing a short returnable date. Requisites, as undertaken, be filed by 06.02.2023.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge S.Dash