Ipicol vs Kantipudi Krisnaya And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4903 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                W.P (C) No. 2998 of 2017

IPICOL                                .....                                       Petitioner
                                                       Mr. S.K. Padhi, Sr. Adv. along with
                                                                     Mrs. M. Padhi, Adv.
                                      Vs.
Kantipudi Krisnaya and others         .....                                 Opposite Parties

              CORAM:
                  DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                  MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

                                              ORDER

02.05.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

03.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mrs. M. Padhi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the judgment dated 30.07.2016 passed in Special Judicial Case No.2 of 2003 (OSFC), by which the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur has dismissed the said case on the ground of limitation of three years and consequentially directed the petitioner to pay the dues amounting to Rs.3,56,17,433/- along with 15% interest till realization.

4. Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mrs. M. Padhi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned District Judge has committed error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as he has construed the limitation of three years and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, which is contrary to the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Pawna and others, (2015) 5 SCC 617 and Deepak Bhandari v. Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, (2015) 5 SCC 518. It is contended that the apex Court has already observed that in such a case the period of limitation would be 12 years and if that would be taken into consideration, in that case the judgment passed by the learned District Judge cannot be

sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that under the State Financial Corporation Act, for taking possession and selling assets for recovery of dues, the limitation being prescribed as 12 years, the learned District Judge has committed gross error in passing the order impugned in Annexure-1. Thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. In the opinion of this Court, the matter requires consideration.

6. Issue notice to the opposite parties.

7. Steps for service of notice on the opposite parties by registered post with A.D. shall be taken within three days. Office shall send notice on the said opposite parties fixing an early returnable date.

8. List this matter along with W.P.(C) No. 9357 of 2015.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Ashok (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE ASHOK Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR KUMAR JAGADEB JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Date: 2023.05.03 MOHAPATRA 15:52:41 +05'30'