Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Birat Chandra Dagara vs Orissa Manganese And Minerals Ltd on 9 May, 2019

Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra

                                                                                         1

     ITEM NO.57                             COURT NO.8                 SECTION XI-A

                                  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     MA No.958 of 2019 in SLP (Civil) No.9770/2019

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-04-2019
     in SLP(C) No.9770/2019 passed by the Supreme Court Of India)

     BIRAT CHANDRA DAGARA                                               Petitioner(s)

                                                   VERSUS

     ORISSA MANGANESE & MINERALS LTD.                                   Respondent(s)

     (FOR ADMISSION; IA No.77333/2019 – FOR STAY APPLICATION;                           IA
     No.77293/2019    –    FOR    INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT; and,                        IA
     No.77326/2019-CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION)

     Date : 09-05-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
                            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

     For Petitioner(s)                Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
                                      Mr. Avijit Patnaik, Adv.
                                      Mr. S.S. Pradhan, Adv.
                                      Suvra Mohapatra, Adv.
                                      Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AOR

     For Respondent(s)


                             UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                O R D E R

The interim order passed by the High Court on 09.04.2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.7445 of 2019 was challenged by way of filing Special Leave Petition No.9770 of 2019 in this Court.

While declining to interfere in the matter, following order was passed by this Court on 26.04.2019:

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.05.11 11:14:57 IST

Reason: “With the assistance of Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through the record.
2
The matter arises out of an interim order and the order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the High Court indicates that the matter was posted for final hearing on 25.04.2019.
Mr. Dave submitted that the matter had since then been adjourned to next week. According to him, there is an urgency in the matter, as under the orders passed by the State Government, compliance is to be reported by 12.05.2019.

In the circumstances, though we do not see any reason to interfere in the matter, we request the High Court to take up the matter as early as possible.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” As indicated in the aforesaid order, the matter was posted for final hearing before the High Court which stood adjourned to 02.05.2019.

The petitioner has since then filed M.A. No.958 of 2019 submitting inter alia that as a result of cyclone FANI, the entire State machinery in the State of Odisha has been completely out of gear and as a matter of fact the High Court of Odisha is also not functioning. An apprehension was expressed that if the lease deed was not signed within the particular time frame, the petitioner will stand denied of all the benefits and the pending matter before the High Court may even become infructuous as against the petitioner.

At the request of the learned senior counsel, MA No.958 of 2019 filed in a disposed of matter was taken up for consideration today in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 3 Since the matter is still pending before the High Court, we may only observe that in case the petitioner succeeds before the High Court, mere absence of execution of lease deed within time frame or the period in question shall not be construed against the petitioner and if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to relief, the same shall not be denied on account of non-execution of lease deed within the time frame.

We have passed this direction in the peculiar facts as the petitioner could not approach the High Court for an appropriate relief.

We shall not be taken to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter which shall be gone into independently by the High Court.

M.A. stands disposed of accordingly.

No order on intervention/impleadment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     (MUKESH NASA)                             (RAJINDER KAUR)
     COURT MASTER                              BRANCH OFFICER