The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: Secreatary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2023 13:02:44 Order No. 9. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 64 of 2022 General Manager, Upper Indravati Project and others …. Petitioners Mr. Durga Prasanna Nanda, Senior Advocate being assisted by Ms. Sarita Moharana, Advocate Pradeep Singh Gill and others -versus- ….
Legal Reasoning
Opp. Parties Mr. A. Sangneria, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 08.08.2023 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Petitioners in this CMP seek to assail the order dated 23rd December, 2021 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nabarangpur in E.P. No.18 of 1992 directing to freeze the Bank A/c of the Petitioners maintained with State Bank of India, Kathiguda Branch. 3. Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that an agreement bearing No.21F2 of 1984- 85 was executed in the year 1985 with the Opposite Party- Contractor for construction of concrete-cum-masonry work of the Indravati Dam of Block No.18 up to RI 625.5. Since the Contractor-Opposite Party neither completed the work nor participated in the measurement of the work done, he was issued with letter dated 6th January, 1986 to come for final measurement of the work done by him. Subsequently, the Contractor filed Money Suit No.417 of 1986 claiming Rs.8,93,659.91 paise with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. On contest, the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 20th March, Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: Secreatary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2023 13:02:44 // 2 // 1991 with a direction to the Petitioners to pay the Contractor a sum of Rs.7,03,375.29 paise along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 12% per annum and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.6,51,077.29 paise. The Executive Engineer, Indravati Dam Division (Petitioner No.1) moved this Court in FA No.168 of 1991. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 19th June, 2002. In the meantime, Execution Case bearing EP No.18 of 1992 was filed by the DHr./Contractor for realization of the amount. After dismissal of the First Appeal, the Petitioners filed a Review Petition, which was also dismissed by this Court. Against the judgment dated 19th June, 2002, the Petitioner preferred SLPC No.17187 of 2003 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was subsequently registered as Civil Appeal No.3114 of 2006. Against the judgment dated 3rd July, 2003 passed in Review Petition No.27 of 2003, the Petitioner preferred SLP(C) No.16439 of 2003, which was subsequently registered as Civil Appeal No.3114 of 2006. Vide order dated 8th September, 2003 (Annexure-5), the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order:- “Issue notice on the special leave petitions as well as on application for condonation of delay in filing the SLP. Interim stay on condition that the amount decreed shall be deposited before the Court of City Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nowrangpur, Orissa to the credit of execution proceedings within six weeks from today. The said amount shall not be disbursed until further orders of this Court.” Accordingly, the Petitioners deposited the decreetal amount to the tune of Rs.10,27,132/- in the shape of bank draft in the execution proceeding. Subsequently, vide common judgment dated 24th July, 2006 (Annexure-4), the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of both the Civil Appeals with a direction to this Court to re- Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: Secreatary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2023 13:02:44 // 3 // examine the issue involved in FA No.168 of 1991 with the following observations/direction made therein. “In the fitness of nature, therefore, the High Court should re-examine the matter on the aforesaid two aspects and decide the matter in accordance with law. So far as the connected appeal is concerned, we find that the High Court rightly held that a case of review was not made out on the grounds apart from those which we have dealt with in the connected appeal. Since the basic issues relating to alleged grievances were not placed for considered before the High Court earlier there was no scope for entertaining a review petition. The High Court had therefore rightly rejected the review petition. The said appeal stands dismissed. As noted above in the appeal relating to the First Appeal before the High Court basic issues are to be examined and, therefore, the re-consideration is to be limited to the two issues indicated above. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.” Accordingly, FA No.168 of 1991 has been reopened and pending before this Court. Subsequently, the DHRs filed an application for release of the decreetal amount so deposited. Learned executing Court dismissed the said application with the observation that when the matter is sub-judice before this Court for reconsideration release of the decreetal amount to the DHrs. would not serve the interest of justice. Being aggrieved the Contractor moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.5339 of 2007, which was dismissed vide order dated 31st October, 2022. Subsequently, the Petitioners received a notice from the executing Court to appear before the Court on 16th September, 2021. In the meantime, the DHrs. field an application to freeze the account of the Petitioners on account of non-payment of the decreetal amount. Learned executing Court without considering the matter in its proper perspective, directed that the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kathiguda Branch to freeze the accounts in the name of the Petitioner, namely, Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: Secreatary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2023 13:02:44 // 4 // Limited bearing No.11411200117 and DGM finance, Upper Indravati Hydro Electric Project SB A/c No.36549493746. Assailing the same, this CMP has been filed. In the meantime the contractor expired and the Opposite Parties have been substituted as his legal representatives. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate that pursuant to the interim order 31st January, 2022 passed in IA No.69 of 2022, the impugned order dated 23rd December, 2021 has been kept in abeyance. The interim order dated 31st January, 2022 reads as under:- “IA No.69 of 2022 Issue notice as above. 5. Accept one set of process fee. 6. 7. As an interim measure, it is directed that the order dated 23.12.2021 under Annexure-1 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Nabarnagpur in E.P. Case No.18/1992 shall be kept in abeyance subject to condition that the Petitioners shall maintain a minimum balance of Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) in the Bank account and subject to such condition, they shall be allowed to operate the account till the next date.” Since the Petitioners are maintaining a minimum balance of Rs.10.00 lakh they are allowed to operate the said accounts. 5. Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate further submits that the fate of the execution case depends upon the disposal of FA No.168 of 1991, which is pending before this Court. Pursuant to the decision of the Full Court, the First Appeals pending before this Court are being transferred to concerned District Judges for adjudication. However, the present First Appeal is pending before this Court in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above. He therefore, submits that the interim order passed in Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: Secreatary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2023 13:02:44 // 5 // this CMP may be made final and a direction may be made for early disposal of the First Appeal for the interest of justice. 6. Mr. Sangneria, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties does not have any objection to the above. He, however, submits that although the First Appeal is listed along with the CMP before this Bench, but it is not in the roster of this Bench. Thus, the FA may be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for necessary direction. 7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court disposes of the CMP making the interim order dated 31st January, 2022 passed in IA No.69 of 2022 final. It shall continue till disposal of the FA No. 168 of 1991 or until further order to be passed by the competent Court, whichever is earlier. However, the Office shall place FA No.168 of 1991 before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders. 8. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the CMP is disposed of. The connected matters, i.e., records in FA No.168 of 1991 be sent to concerned Section immediately. So far as W.P.(C) No.5339 of 2007 is concerned since the same has been dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 31st October, 2022 by a collateral Bench, no order is need be passed. Accordingly, the case record be returned to concerned Section forthwith. Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy Page 5 of 5