The Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd vs Birat Chandra Dagara ... Opposite Party on 9 July, 2019

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

The Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd vs Birat Chandra Dagara ... Opposite Party on 9 July, 2019

Bench: Biswanath Rath

      ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK.
                 W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019
                           AND
                 W.P.(C) No.7537 of 2019

        An application under Articles 226 & 227 of
                 the Constitution of India.
                            ----------

In W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019 The Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Birat Chandra Dagara ... Opposite Party For Petitioner : M/s. Rajat Kumar Rath (Sr. Adv.), A.K. Kanungo For Opp. Party : M/s. Jagannath Patnaik (Sr. Adv.), A. Patnaik, B. Mohanty, S.S. Kanungo, S. Mohapatra, S. Patnaik In W.P.(C) No.7537 of 2019 Birat Chandra Dagara ... Petitioner Versus The Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. ... Opposite Party For Petitioner : M/s. Jagannath Patnaik (Sr. Adv.), A. Patnaik, B. Mohanty, S.S. Kanungo, S. Mohapatra, S. Patnaik For Opp. Party : M/s. Rajat Kumar Rath (Sr. Adv.), A.K. Kanungo

----------

PRESENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing :18.06.2019 Date of Judgment : 09.07.2019

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biswanath Rath, J. W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019 has been filed by the Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. whereas W.P.(C) No.7537 of 2019 has been filed by Shri Birat Chandra Dagara involving a common impugned order but on different context.

W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019 has been filed assailing the order dated 02.04.2019 at Annexure-22 passed by the District Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada involving a miscellaneous application vide Execution Petition No.1 of 2019 arising out of an Arbitration award involving the petitioner and the opposite party herein in disposal of an application U/s.151 of C.P.C. dated 25.1.2019 alongwith disposal of a petition dated 7.02.2019 on behalf of the present opposite party-judgment debtor for recalling of an interim order, which were decided analogously and in disposal thereby modifying the interim order dated 7.02.2019 but however with imposition of condition on the judgment debtor for furnishing a bank gurantee worth rupees five crores within a month also prohibiting the judgment debtor not to dispose of or cause destruction to the schedule-B property appended to the execution petition till disposal of the execution proceeding. It is also directed therein that mining operation shall be intimated to the District Court in shape of affidavit. Whereas W.P.(C) No.7537 of 2019 has been filed by Shri Birat Chandra Dagara the Judgment debtor also assailing the same order dated 02.04.2019 again available at Annexure-1 herein involving Execution Petition No.1 of 2019 but however, involving the condition attached by the District judge so far it relates to the petitioner involving W.P.(C) No.7537 of 2019 the judgment debtor involved herein.

2. On consent of parties, since both the writ petitions involve challenge to the same order and since the parties have common set of submissions, this Court takes up both the matters together and decides both the matters by this common judgment. For the background involved herein, further as it appears, the dispute has a long history, to avoid any doubt in the facts and developments therein, this Court feels it appropriate to bring the history involving the disputes between the parties before proceeding to decide the actual dispute involving the writ petitions.

3. A mining lease for Iron Ore for over an area admeasuring 618 hectares at Suleipat Iron Ore Mines in the District of Mayurbhanj was originally held by one Sri Bajrang Lal Padia for a term of 30 years w.e.f.25.10.1975. This lease area was transferred by Shri Bajrang Lal Padia to the petitioner with prior consent of the State Government w.e.f. 24.10.1984. For the unexpired period of lease Birat Chandra Dagra applied for renewal on 18.10.2004 i.e. twelve months prior to expiry of lease of 25.10.2005. Following the provision under Rule 24(a)(i) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 hereinafter in short be called as "the Rules, 1960" Sri Dagara was undertaking mining operation involving the lease hold area through the raising contractor M/s. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. hereinafter in short be called as "O.M.M Ltd.". Copy of agreement between Shri Dagara and M/s. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. appears at Annexure-1 in W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019. Facts further disclose that while the O.M.M. Ltd. was continuing as the raising contractor on the allegation of clandestine mine raising by the lease holder and involving of financial irregularities at the instance of the several mining lease holders in the State of Orissa, based on a decision to have an inquiry Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B Shah was appointed as 4 Judge Commission of Inquiry to enquire into illegal mining of Iron and Manganese ore in the State of Orissa commonly known as "Shah Commission". The Hon'ble Commission while submitting his final report made certain recommendations in the matter of prohibition of industrial activity in certain part of Mayurbhanj District. Knowing fully well the aforesaid development and constraints came through the Hon'ble Shah Commission report Shri Dagara insisted the petitioner to set up a Steel Plant in the district of Mayurbhanj as per the terms and conditions of the JV Agreement. There was difficulty in the location for establishment of the steel industry. Finally Shri Dagara showed extreme unwillingness to set up the industry as per the terms of the J.V Agreement, in spite of the fact that the O.M.M Ltd was ready and willing to set up the plant in terms of the J.V. Agreement at a different location or even in the district of Mayurbhanj. Attempt of O.M.M. Ltd. also failed in spite of O.M.M Ltd. obtaining several statutory clearances in order to make Suleipat Iron Ore Mines operational at a substantial physical and financial cost. Ultimately on 10.12.2011 the Suleipat Iron Ore Mines became operational for the sole efforts of the O.M.M. Ltd. and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the J.V. Agreement dated 12.04.2010. In the meantime on 3.02.2012 the Government of Odisha issued a show cause-cum-closure notice under Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to Shri Dagara on the premises that he has granted general power of Attorney in favour of M/s.Taurian Exim Pvt. Ltd. in 2002 assigning its lease hold right and thereby squarely violating all the provisions of Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 landing Shri Dagara liable for cancellation of the lease. Simultaneously the State Government directed Shri Dagara to stop mining operation forthwith due to these violations and pending reply to the show cause notice. The mining operation 5 was resumed in the month of July 2012 pursuant to the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the High Court of Orissa in F.A.O. No.278 of 2012. However, the O.M.M Ltd. was prevented from carrying out the mining operation in spite of the J.V. Agreement remained in operation. In the meantime, there was also intervention by the Forest Officials resulting closure of Sulaipat Iron Ore Mines after expiry of Temporary Working Permission on 8.03.2013. While the matter stood thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 10.02.2014 in I.A. No.3692 arising out of W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995 granted working permission to the Sulaipat Iron Ore Mines, thereby further directing the State Government as well as the Central Government to process the Forest Diversion Proposal in a time bound manner. It is for the intervention of the Hon'ble Apex Court the mining operation was again resumed on 7.03.2014 and Stage-I Forest Clearance was accorded on 23.05.2014 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. The mining operation was once again suspended on 12.06.2014 as the State Government had included the said mine in the list meant for non-working mines by way of an affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and for the prohibition granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court under a bona fide impression that the affidavit at the instance of the State Government filed in the Hon'ble Apex Court remain true. This error was rectified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in I.A. No.3 arising out of W.P.(C) No.114 of 2014 (Common Cause) vide its order dated 12.09.2014 and the mines became operational from 30.09.2014. In the meantime, for the clandestine operation of the mines by Shri Dagara before entering into J.V. Agreement, the Mining Officer, Baripada Circle issued show cause notice requiring Shri Dagara to deposit a sum of Rs.67,21,01,988/- towards cost price for raising the iron ore illegally from Sulaipat Iron Ore Mines. In the meantime, O.M.M 6 Ltd. raised invoices to the tune of Rs.225,85,37,305/-against opposite party in the 1st Writ Petition Shri Dagara, for the cost incurred in excavation of iron ore from the Suleipat Iron ore mines for the financial years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and 2015-

16. Yet Shri Dagara remained in clandestine raising of iron ore incurring loss to the OMM Ltd. In the meantime, the opposite party issued a composite work order dated 15.12.2014 for "Screening, Crushing and Stacking Iron Ore including removal of requisite quantity of over burden at Sulaipat Iron Ore Mine" in favour of M/s. Minefield Minerals and Metals (P) Ltd. Similar work order was also issued by Shri Dagara to M/s.Zillion Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for loading of Iron Ore from Sulaipat Iron Ore Mines at Kuldiha Railway Siding of South Eastern Railway. Finding the situation difficult and no scope for O.M.M Ltd. operating as a raising contractor, it time and again called the opposite party Shri Dagara in the earlier Writ Petition and petitioner in the subsequent Writ Petition to settle its long pending dues and further to honour its commitment following the conditions in the J.V. Agreement remained operational. It is alleged by the O.M.M. Ltd. that said Dagara instead of making any effort to resolve the dispute by honouring its obligation under the J.V. Agreement, physically restrained the O.M.M. Ltd from carrying out mining operations thereby obstructing operation of the J.V. Agreement. Finding the clandestine attempt by Shri Dagara a party to the J.V. Agreement and working in violation of terms and conditions under the J.V. Agreement, the petitioner-O.M.M Ltd. filed a petition U/s.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the file of the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada seeking protection by way of interim measure. The petition was registered as Arbitration Petition No.14 of 2015. Above Section-9 petition was taken up on 30.10.2015, on which date the District Judge, Mayurbhanj while 7 issuing notice to Shri Dagara and fixing the case to 17.11.2015 was pleased to pass the following :

"The prayer of the petitioner to issue an order of ad-interim injunction is allowed. The O.P., his servants, agents and assigns and each of them are hereby restrained by way of ad-interim injunction in interfering and obstructing with the mining operation carried out by the petitioner in terms of J.V. agreement in Sulaipat Iron Ore Mines and from causing any damage to the Petitioner in any manner till disposal of the Arbitration Petition or until further orders."

4. In the meantime the O.M.M Ltd. with an intention to invoke the arbitration clause under the J.V. Agreement put Shri Dagara on notice on 29.10.2015. On 17.11.2015 Shri Dagara appearing in Arbitration Petition No.14 of 2015 along with its reply affidavit filed petition for vacation of interim order dated 30.10.2015. District Judge, Mayurbhanj upon hearing the parties passed an order on 15.12.2015 vacating the interim order dated 30.10.2015 for the time being and fixed the case to 7.01.2016. The O.M.M Ltd. being aggrieved by the order dated 5.12.2015 involving Arbitration Petition No.14 of 2015 preferred Arbitration Appeal no.34 of 2015 in this Court. This Court while issuing notice on the question of admission of the matter directed service of copy of memorandum of appeal along with documents on the counsel for the opposite party the respondent therein as there was already appearance by the counsel for the respondent, at the same time, however passed an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 15.12.2015 till final adjudication of the appeal.

While the matter stood thus the opposite party without any consultation with the petitioner terminated the J.V. Agreement on 7.12.2015 taking advantage of the order of the District Judge, Mayurbhanj dated 5.12.2015. In the meantime Arbitration Appeal No.34 of 2015 was finally disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 26.02.2016 whereby this Court directed the parties to 8 maintain status quo in respect of the subject matter of the dispute till disposal of the Arbitration Petition No.14 of 2015. While the matter stood thus, by order dated 7.04.2016 in another development Arbitration Petition No.31 of 2015 filed U/s.11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was disposed of by this Court by referring the main dispute to the High Court of Orissa Arbitration Centre by appointing Justice B.P. Das, (Retd.) as the sole Arbitrator. In another development considering W.P.(C) No.23070 of 2015 filed before this Court at the instance of the opposite party, this Court hearing both the parties again by order dated 19.04.2016 vide Annexure-8 observed as follows:

"In view of the facts and circumstances detailed above, the present writ petition against the very same impugned order dated 5.12.2015 is not maintainable.

However, it is open for the petitioner to move the application, which is stated to have been filed for adjudication on the question of jurisdiction, which shall be considered on its own merit and in accordance with law.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules."

5. Assailing the order dated 7.04.2016, 26.02.2016 & 19.04.2016 Shri Dagara filed three separate Special Leave petitions bearing SLP (C) No.13599 of 2016, SLP (C) No.13803 of 2016 and SLP (C) No.13824 of 2016 respectively before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which SLPs were disposed of on 1.07.2016 by the Hon'ble Apex Court with the following order:

"SLP (C) No.13599 of 2016

Without expressing any opinion on the appointed Arbitrator and taking into consideration the suggestion of Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. Gopal Subramonium, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite party/Judgment Debtor no.1, we appoint Justice Vikramajit Sen, former Judge of this Court as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and pass necessary Award.

The learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to fix his own remuneration and other terms of Arbitration including situs.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of."

SLP (C) No.13803 of 2016 and SLP (C) No.13824 of 2016 In the light of the present order, nothing survives in these special leave petitions. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.

The proceedings pending before the Trial court will stand terminated with a further observation that whatever status quo in being maintained as on date, shall continue to be in force till the learned Arbitrator passes the appropriate orders." Copy of detail order is available at Annexure-9 in W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019.

6. After the above, further based on the developments after disposal of the SLPs in the Hon'ble Apex Court and on being noticed the petitioner/O.M.M. Ltd. filed its statement of claim before the sole Arbitrator. Similarly Shri Dagara also filed his statement of defence alongwith documents and petition U/s.17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator. Both the parties on 13.06.2017 entered into a "Terms of Settlement" whereby both the parties compromised the disputes and differences that had arisen by and between the parties.

Consequent upon filing of application before the sole Arbitrator for passing award in terms of settlement by the petitioner on 18.08.2017 and by the opposite party on 20.01.2018, learned sole Arbitrator upon consideration of joint request passed the compromise award on 20.01.2018 vide Annexure-10 in W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019, leaving the parties to act in accordance with the J.V. Agreement and other allied/ancillary agreements executed on 12.04.2010. It be noted here that, this consent award had never been challenged in higher forum by any either of the parties. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party did not allow the 10 petitioner to enter into the mining lease hold area in gross violation of the consented award of the learned Arbitrator dated 20.1.2018 rather threatened the petitioner's agents, servants and employees from carrying out the mining operation in Sulaipat Iron Ore Mines in spite of revival of the J.V. agreement and other allied/ancillary agreements pursuant to the consent award dated 20.01.2018 and thus the petitioner was constrained to write a complaint on 31.12.2018 vide Annexure-12 and finding no resolve of the problem the petitioner was constrained to take up the consent award for execution and accordingly filed Execution Petition No.1 of 2019 before the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada for enforcement / execution of the consent award dated 20.01.2018. It is along with the execution petition the petitioner was also constrained to file an application for interim protection inasmuch as seeking a direction to the opposite party Shri Dagara to allow the petitioner to resume the mining operation in Sulaipat Iron Ore Mines in terms of the consent award dated 20.01.2018 and further directing the opposite party not to carry out the mining operation in Sulaipat Iron Ore Mines on his own or through any other party and also further for a direction to the opposite party to act strictly in terms of the decree i.e. the consented arbitral award dated 20.01.2018 and not in derogation of the same. It be made clear that Section 151 of C.P.C. application was clearly in the trap of injunction application inter alia Section 9 of the Act, 1996. The interim application was taken up for hearing by the District Judge, Mayurbhanj on 7.02.2019. Upon hearing the petitioner the District Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada vide his order dated 7.02.2019 was pleased to pass the following interim order:

"Hence, I am of the opinion that unless O.P./J.D.R. is restrained from carrying out any mining operation in Sulaipat Iron Ore mines by himself or through his agents or though any other party, the D.H.R. will suffer irreparable loss. The 11 J.D.R. is therefore restrained from performing any mining activities in Sulaipat Iron Ore Mines by himself or through agent or through third party till next date i.e. 7.03.2019. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Issue summons to the J.D.R. in both the ways for appearance and filing of show cause."

7. On 8.02.2019 the execution petition was placed before the District Judge on the strength of advance petition alongwith a petition to recall the order dated 7.02.2019 at the instance of Shri Dagara. The matter was next posted to 21.02.2019. On which date after hearing the parties the matter was postponed to 7.03.2019 keeping in view the request of the counsel for the petitioner-OMM Ltd. to come up with certain more documents. Again a petition to recall the order dated 7.02.2019 was filed on 21.02.2019 by Shri Dagara. Hearing the submission of the opposite party, the District Judge clarified the interim order dated 7.02.2019 indicating therein that the interim order dated 7.02.2019 shall not stand on the way of execution of supplementary lease deed between the Government of Odisha and the Opposite party. This order was however nothing to do with the main dispute but by way of clarificatory only. On 7.03.2019 the petitioner filed its counter affidavit to the petition dated 21.02.2019 for recalling the order dated 7.02.2019. The District Judge heard the matter on 7.03.2019 but however vide his order dated 7.03.2019 rejected the petition dated 21.02.2019 filed by Shri Dagara find place at Annexure-19 in W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019. On 19.03.2019 Shri Dagara filed W.P.(C) No.6353 of 2019 inter alia challenging the entire execution proceeding on the ground of maintainability and also the interim orders dated 7.02.2019 and 7.03.2019 passed in Execution Case No.1 of 2019. This Court hearing the parties allowing the W.P.(C) no.6353 of 2019 by its order dated 20.03.2019 (Annexure-20 in W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019) remanded the matter back to the District Judge, Mayurbhanj 12 thereby directing the District Judge to dispose the petition dated 21.02.2019 afresh and after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides, fixed the date of appearance of the parties before the District Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada to 28.03.2019. Pursuant to the direction of this Court the parties appeared before the District Court. The petitioner on its appearance filed a memo enclosing a demand notice issued by the Government of Odisha against the opposite party-Shri Dagara U/s.21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 for his clandestine illegal mining for the period 2000-01 to 2010-11 and the Challans evidencing payment of amount involving the demand by Shri Dagara. The matter was again posted to 2.04.2019, on which date the District Judge in disposal of the interim application at the instance of the petitioner-OMM Ltd. as well as the petition on behalf of the opposite party-Shri Dagara finally observed as follows:

"7. In result, the interim order dated 7.02.2019 passed by this Court is vacated subject to furnishing a bank gurantee of Rs.5(five) corers by the O.P./J.Dr within one month. The O.P./J.Dr is further directed not to dispose of or cause destruction to the Schedule-B property appended to the Execution petition till disposal of the Execution proceeding. It is made clear that the mining operation should not be resumed before full compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in I.A. No.58800/18 and the conditions laid by the Govt. of Odisha in its letter No.924 dated 12.2.19 and the date of resumption of mining operation shall be intimated to this Court in shape of affidavit.

Both the petitions dated 25.1.19 filed U/sec.151 C.P.C. on behalf of the Petitioner/D.Hr and the petition dated 7.2.19 filed on behalf of the O.P./J.Dr are disposed of accordingly. Put up on the date fixed for filing of show-cause by the O.P./J.Dr."

The order dated 2.04.2019 is assailed herein in both the Writ Petitions but on different context.

8. Sri R.K. Rath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7445/2019 and contesting-opposite party in W.P.(C) No.7537/2019 on reiteration of the factual aspect involved herein, the stand taken by the OMM Ltd. in the court below as well as the grounds taken herein and taking this Court to the interim order passed by the District Judge involving the interim application pending the Execution proceeding as well as the order impugned herein submitted that District Judge in categoric terms came to observe that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss rule in favour of the OMM Ltd. Sri Rath, learned senior counsel thus for the categoric finding of District Judge on all the three important ingredients involving protection in favour of the O.M.M. Ltd. contended that for the finding involving all these cases in favour of the O.M.M Ltd., the District Judge had no other option than to restrain Mr.Dagara, O.P. in W.P.(C) No.7445/2019 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7537/2019 at least till final outcome involving the Execution proceeding. Taking this Court to the development taking place before the sole Arbitrator being appointed by the Hon'ble apex Court, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel, further contended that for the compromise award involving the arbitration proceeding between the parties and thereby for the revival of the J.V. agreement as well as the raising contract between the parties involved herein and for no scope to challenge the same in higher forum by Mr.Dagara, the arbitration award becomes a decree, and therefore, the OMM Ltd. has a right to put the decree involving the arbitration award for execution that too for non-cooperation of the opposite parties in working out the arbitral award vis-a-vis the J.V. 14 agreement as well as the raising contract. Sri Rath, learned senior counsel taking this Court to some decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court attempted to justify that such an award becomes a decree and thus the OMM Ltd. has a right to enforce such award on application of Section 36 of the Act, 1996. Taking this Court to the observation of the District Judge on balance of convenience involving the impugned order, Shri Rath, learned Senior Counsel contended that the District Judge failed in appreciating the repurcation by virtue of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court involving I.A. No.58800 of 2018 and thereby has arrived at the wrong and erroneous findings. In the above background, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel further contended that for the clear case under Section 36 of the Act, 1996, the petitioner, i.e., the OMM Ltd. is bound to be protected. Further taking to the history involving the conduct of Sri Dagara entering into further contracts with third parties involving the same property placed on record, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel further urged that for the background involving the conduct of Sri Dagara and for the satisfaction of all the three important ingredients in favour of the OMM Ltd., learned District Judge committed error on law in passing the impugned order thereby permitting Sri Dagara to work out the mining contract on its own or through his Agent subject to condition imposed therein. Sri Rath, learned senior counsel in the above circumstance assailing the impugned order prayed this Court for interfering in the same and reviving the interim order and/or modifying the impugned order as appropriate keeping in view the interest of the parties herein.

9. Sri J.Pattnaik, learned senior counsel being assisted by Sri A.Pattnaik, appearing for Shri Dagara, on the other hand, on reiteration of the plea of the parties in the court below enumerated 15 herein above, the plea involving the petition for vacation of the interim order, further the grounds raised in W.P.(C) No.7537/2019 at the instance of Sri Dagara, submitted that Sri Dagara has a case for protection for the subsequent development by virtue of the Hon'ble apex Court order dated 6.9.2018 involving I.A. No.58800/2018. Sri J.Pattnaik, learned senior counsel further on the basis of aforesaid judgments and also taking this Court to the subsequent development such as extension of the lease period involving the mining lease involved herein by the State Government submitted that there is no existence of either the J.V. agreement or the raising contract involving the parties, therefore, even assuming that the arbitral award became a decree but nothing survived for execution of such decree.

It is, in the above circumstance, Sri J.Pattnaik, learned senior counsel submitted that the District Judge even though appreciated the development through the order of the Hon'ble apex Court involving I.A. No.58800/2018 and as a consequence, by passing the impugned order, the District Judge ought to have simply rejected the Section 151 application by recalling the interim order therein. Sri J.Pattnaik, learned senior counsel also assailed the impugned order on the premises that for the background involved herein, no application under Section 151, C.P.C. is maintainable. Further taking this Court to the amended provision in the MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015 contended that pending grant of renewal, the mining operation was discontinued from 26.10.2015 and operation of the mining, if any, became ineffective from 12.1.2015.

In the circumstances, Sri Pattnaik, learned senior counsel claimed that the J.V. agreement executed between the parties on 12.4.2010 became inoperative from 26.10.2015. It is, in the above 16 background of the matter, Sri J.Pattnaik, learned senior counsel while resisting the claim of M/s. O.M.M. Ltd., however, confined his submission in challenging the impugned order so far it relates to imposition of condition by the District Judge directing Sri Dagara for furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.5.00 crore within one month and also the further condition against Sri Dagara asking him not to dispose of or cause destruction of Schedule 'B' property appended to the execution petition.

10. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that Shri Dagara continues to be the lessee in respect of a mining lease for iron ore over 618 hectares at Suleipat Iron Ore Mines and the mining lease as per the communication of Government of Odisha, Steel & Mines Department No.924 dated 12.2.2019 has been extended upto 24.02.2025 but however, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. There is no dispute that there exists a Joint Venture agreement dated 12.04.2010 between the parties involving both the Writ Petitions more particularly between O.M.M. Ltd. and Shri Birat Chandra Dagara. Consequent upon which, the parties have also entered into a raising agreement on 12.04.2010 under the conditions stated therein. Involving a complication between the parties involved herein, further as Shri Dagara in terms of the J.V. Agreement did not clear the long pending dues and at the same time entered into the contractual agreement with M/s.Taurian Exin. (P.O.) Ltd. and M/s.MQM in respect of the mining ore involved thereby misappropriated the excavated stock iron ore and sold the iron ore to various parties instead of the companies under the J.V. agreement, on the premises of violation of terms and condition of the J.V. Agreement and misappropriation as well as sell by Shri Dagara, a proceeding U/s.9 of the Arbitration and 17 Conciliation Act, 1996 was initiated and registered as ARBP No.14 of 2015 on the file of the District Judge, Mayurbhanj. Upon hearing the parties and on the premises that there is violation of condition of J.V. Agreement by Shri Dagara the District Judge, Mayurbhanj after coming to the finding that the O.M.M Ltd. is thereby sustaining irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any manner by order dated 30.10.2015, as an interim measure passed an ad-interim order. After appearance of the parties and on contest of the parties, while vacating the interim order dated 30.10.2015 by his order dated 5.12.2015 the District Judge passed the following order:

"9. The case is posted today for consideration as to whether the ad-interim injunction granted earlier will be made absolute or not ? It is pertinent to note here that on account of liberal adjournment with the consent of both sides. 30 days has already been elapsed as stated in foregoing paragraphs. The argument so advanced on behalf of the O.P. is required to be adjudicated during hearing of the main arbitration petition. When ad-interim injunction petition is taken up for hearing, the determination regarding the above point of jurisdiction is to be avoided, as it would prejudge the merit of the original arbitration petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and when the O.P. has entered appearance and filed his show cause, in the interest of justice, I think it proper to vacate the ad-interim injunction and accordingly, the same stands vacated for the time being fixing the case to 7.1.16 for hearing on the injunction petition. Intimate the parties."

11. It is, against the order dated 5.12.2015 the O.M.M. Ltd. filed appeal U/s.37(I)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being registered as ARBA No.34 of 2015. While issuing notice in the Arbitration Appeal this Court considering the Misc. Case No.61 of 2015 by order dated 10.12.2015 passed an order staying the operation of the order dated 5.12.2015 passed by the 18 learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Arbitration Petition No.14 of 2015.

12. ARBA No.34 of 2015 was finally heard and disposed of and by order dated 26.02.2016 this Court on contest of the parties passed the following:

"Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal is disposed of directing both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the subject matter of the dispute till disposal of the Arbitration Petition No.14 of 2015.

It is open for the parties to raise all such pleas as are available to them in law at the time of hearing of the arbitration petition, including the question of jurisdiction."

13. In another development an application U/s.11(5) of Arbitration Act was moved to this Court registered as ARBP No.31 of 2015 for appointment of Arbitrator. This matter was decided on contest and disposed of by appointing Shri B.P. Das, a former Judge of this Court as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties fixing the venue of the Arbitration at Orissa High Court Arbitration Centre. In the meantime, Shri Dagara filed Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.23070 of 2015 challenging the order dated 5.12.2015, this Court disposing the W.P.(C) No.23070 of 2015 by order dated 19.04.2016 held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Involving the above developments three Special Leave Petitions Vide SLP(C) No.13599 of 2016, SLP (C) No.13803 of 2016 and SLP (C) No.13824 of 2016 were preferred. All the three Special Leave Petitions were disposed of by a common order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 1.07.2016 (Annexure-9 in W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in disposing the SLP(C) No.13599 of 2016 interfering in the order of this Court in Arbitration Petition No.31 of 2015 appointed Justice Vikramajit 19 Sen, former Judge of the Hon'ble Apex Court as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and pass necessary award. Similarly disposing the other two SLPs while terminating the proceeding pending before the trial court vide ARBP No.14 of 2015 requested the sole Arbitrator appointed by the Hon'ble Apex Court to take up the application, if any, moved by Shri Dagara in the first instance and pass order as expeditiously as possible and without being influenced by any of the orders passed by the Courts below, while directing the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of disposal of the above SLPs on 1.07.2016.

It is needless to mention here that by this order the order dated 26.02.2016 wherein this Court in disposal of the ARBA No.34 of 2015 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the subject matter of the dispute, got revived. In the meantime, pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court Justice Vikramajit Sen was appointed as the sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the Arbitration proceeding between the parties. For filing of the application by the respective parties for passing award in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, respected Sole Arbitral Tribunal disposed of the Arbitration proceeding at his end by passing an award in terms of settlement dated 13.06.2017 find place at page 138 to 140 of the W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019. For the gravity of the matter further to erase any doubt, this Court feels it appropriate to take note of the conditions in the settlement being very relevant in terms of status of both the parties as the award is passed in terms of settlement, which are reproduced as herein below:

"(A) The parties above mentioned had executed a Joint Venture Agreement and other related/ Ancillary Agreements on 12.04.2010 for Suleipat Iron Ore Mines of the Second Party in accordance to the terms and conditions mentioned therein.

(B) The Agreements as aforesaid were made operational by both the parties in terms and conditions stipulated in these Agreements and the arrangements so stipulated continued to be operational till October, 2015.

(C) The disputes and difference arose between the parties in October, 2015, the First Party invoked the Arbitration Clause in the Agreement and filed Section-9 Application in Court. The matter was heard by different Judicial Forum and is presently in Arbitration being conducted by the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator Justice Vikramajit Sen, (Retd.) Judge, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

(D) The parties have now mutually agreed to settle all their inter-se disputes among themselves at the following terms and conditions (hereinafter referred to as the "TERMS OF SETTLEMENT").

(E) Both the parties hereby declared that such a settlement has been reached without any undue pressure or haste, and, is a result of well thought out business decision arrived by the parties after prolonged discussion between the parties in mutual business interest.

(F) The parties hereby stipulate the terms of settlement herein below in complete mutual agreement:

(1) The said terms of settlement has been arrived at mutually agreed by and between both the parties after obtaining proper consent/ authorization. The settlement shall be binding on all the legal heirs/nominees, assigns of both the parties.

(2) The relationship between the parties shall be governed exclusively by the terms and conditions of the J.V. Agreement and all other allied Agreements executed between the parties on 12.04.2010 which shall be binding on both the parties. All other documents, understanding, disputes shall deemed not to be in existences and shall become legally inoperative with immediate effect in view of this settlement.

(3) All the authorizations already given by Sri B.C. Dagara to O.M.M. for State Govt. MoEF, IBM, Railways and other Statutory Agencies shall be reissued and all such authorization shall be accepted by the parties as irrevocable. (4) On and from the date of execution of this Deed of Settlement between the parties, either of the parties shall have no grievance against each other.

All the Sub-Judice claims of either of the parties against each other stands settled and closed.

(5) The parties have executed this legally binding Terms of Settlement incorporating the above mentioned points and do hereby undertake to mutually approach the Hon'ble Arbitrator praying to the Hon'ble Tribunal for a consent award at the earliest with this terms of settlement being a part of the Award.

(6) The terms of settlement as executed between the parties is the final document governing relationship between the parties inter-se. It shall be read as an integeral part of earlier Agreement and other Agreements executed earlier between the parties and shall form a part and parcel of the same.

(7) The parties shall file this terms of settlement before the Hon'ble Arbitrator within one week of its execution along with an application requesting the Hon'ble Arbitrator to pass a consent award in terms of this settlement.

(8) The parties shall bear their own costs.

(9) All the outstanding account/ receivables between both the parties shall be settled as per the books of accounts of both the parties."

Reading the aforesaid terms in the settlement between the parties and further looking to the directions contained in the award, this Court finds, it becomes clear that not only there has been revival of the J.V. agreement but parties are also required to 22 be governed exclusively by the terms and conditions of the J.V. agreement and all other allied agreement executed between the parties on 12.04.2010. The settlement also made it clear that on and from the date of execution of the settlement deed between the parties involved herein either of the parties shall have no grievance against each other and all the sub-judice claim of either of the parties against each other stands settled and closed finally. It is also agreed therein that all the outstanding accounts/receivables between both the parties shall be settled as per the books of accounts of both the parties again leaving no room of doubt in the matter of payment. It is while the matter stood thus and while no party has challenged the award passed by the sole Arbitrator, the award of the sole Arbitrator remained as a decree in terms of the Section 35 of the Act, 1996 and binding on the parties therein in terms of Section 35 of the Act. For not allowing the O.M.M. Ltd. functioning as a raising Contractor in terms of the J.V. agreement and further threatening the authority of the O.M.M. Ltd and their personnels, the O.M.M. Ltd. while filing an F.I.R. before the Badampahar Police Station vide Annexure-12 in its Writ Petition choose to file an execution petition U/s.36 of the Act, 1996 on the file of District Judge, Mayurbhanj, registered as Execution Petition No.1 of 2019. On the clandestine attempt of Shri Dagara and his working not only in violation of the J.V. agreement and the subsequent agreements involving the J.V. agreement further in clear contravention to the award passed by the respected sole Arbitrator, the O.M.M. Ltd. was constrained to file an application U/s.151 of C.P.C. pending final adjudication of the Execution Petition. The District Judge by his order dated 7.02.2019 finding prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of M/s. O.M.M. Ltd. while prohibiting the judgment debtor 23 from carrying out any mining operation in Sulaipat Iron Ore Mines passed the following:

"Peruse the award and other relevant papers. The terms and conditions on which the matter was resolved are mentioned in the award of the sole arbitrator. Being satisfied with the fact that the D.H.R. has prima-facie case and balance of convenience leans in its favour. Hence, I am of the opinion that unless O.P./J.D.R is restrained from carrying out any mining operation in Sulaipat Iron Ore mines by himself or through his agents or through any other party, the D.H.R. will suffer irreparable loss. The J.D.R. is therefore restrained from performing any mining activities in Sulaipat Iron Ore Mines by himself or through agent or through third party till next date i.e. 07.03.2019. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Issue summons to the J.D.R. in both the ways for appearance and filing of show cause." (Underlining is of this Court)

14. In the meantime, Shri Dagara on his appearance filed an application to recall the order dated 7.02.2019 on the ground stated therein. Reading the application, it appears, Shri Dagara on the premises of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 6.09.2018 involving I.A. No.58800 of 2018 in W.P.(Civil) No.114 of 2014 pressed his application asking the District Judge to recall the order dated 7.02.2019 under the guise of a new lease of life being created in his favour. This Court looking to the order dated 6.09.2018 involving disposal of the I.A. No.58800 of 2018 arising out of W.P.(C) No.114 of 2014 finds, by the said order the Hon'ble Apex Court while recording the statement of the learned Counsel for the State of Odisha regarding the payment of dues in terms of the earlier direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court as a measure of fine imposed on account of illegal mining by different mining holders including Sri Dagara, directed for resumption of mining involving Sri Dagara but however, subject to compliance of all the regulatory requirements including clearance. For the subsequent development 24 involving the letter of the Government of Odisha in Steel & Mines Department dated 12.02.2019, this Court observes not only there has been resumption of the mining lease but the period of lease has also been extended under the direction of the competent authority upto 24.10.2025. Looking to the background involving the case and the conditions in the J.V. Agreement, taking into account the compromise award by the respected sole Arbitrator, this Court here observes not only prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss leans in favour of the petitioner i.e. M/s. O.M.M. Ltd, the order involving I.A. No.58800 of 2018 arising out of W.P.(C) No.114 of 2014 since was on a different context, was no way obstructing in working out of the arbitral award put to execution rather keeping the entitlement of the O.M.M. Ltd. open to be worked out by the executing Court. It is, at this stage of the matter, this Court finds, the District Judge by order dated 21.02.2019 passed the following:

"Shri A.K. Mohanty and his associates file Vokalatnama executed by J.Dr. Birat Chandra Dagara along with a petition to recall the order dated

7.2.2019. He has also filed documents as per list. Copy of the petition is served on the learned counsel for the D.Hr. The learned counsel prayed to grant some time for filing objection to the petition filed today by J.Dr. At this stage, the learned counsel Sri Mohanty submitted that the J.Dr. Is directed by the Govt. Of Orissa to execute supplementary lease deed within a period of three months from the date of issue of letter i.e. 12.2.2019. It is made clear that the interim order dated 7.2.2019 shall not stand on the way of execution of Supplementary Lease Deed between the Govt. And J.Dr.. Put up on the date fixed i.e. 7.3.2019 for objection and hearing of both the petitions."

It appears, by order dated 21.02.2019, keeping in view the subsequent developments, the District Judge only clarified that the order dated 7.02.2019 shall not stand on the way of execution of supplementary lease deed between the Government and the 25 Judgment debtor, appears to be an outcome on the basis of the communication of the Government dated 12.2.2019 thereby extending the period of lease up to 24.10.2025 and thereby by clause no.18 asking the Judgment debtor to execute a supplementary lease deed. In the meantime, for the District Judge passing an order on 7.03.2019, rejected the application for recalling the order dated 7.02.2019, thereby maintaining the order dated 7.02.2019 to continue. This order was challenged by Shri Dagara in filing W.P.(C) No.6353 of 2019, disposed of on context where this Court while setting aside the order dated 7.03.2019 remanded the matter for rehearing of the petition for recalling of the order dated 7.02.2019 while allowing the order dated 7.02.2019 to continue till disposal of the recalling application. In the meantime on rehearing of the matter for the remand direction by this Court, the District judge by order dated 2.04.2019 while observing that there is prima facie case in favour of M/s. O.M.M. Ltd. for the new lease of life to the J.V. agreement on the basis of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in I.A. No.58800 of 2018 but considering the question of balance of convenience as well as inconvenience involving the parties and the question of irreparable loss to be sustained by M/s.O.M.M. Ltd. while vacating the interim order dated 7.02.2019 and directing Shri Dagara to furnish a bank gurantee of rupees five crores, thereby further directing the Judgment Debtor Shri Dagara not to dispose of or cause obstruction to Schedule-B property till disposal of the execution proceeding at the same time also restrained Shri Dagara from resuming the mining operation before full compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in I.A. No.58800 of 2018 and the conditions laid by the Government of Odisha in its letter No.924 dated 12.02.2019. This Court observes, while deciding the petition dated 21.02.2019 at the instance of the 26 Judgment debtor to recall the order dated 7.02.2019 the District Judge has a clear finding on prima facie case as well as irreparable loss in favour of the decree holder i.e. M/s.O.M.M. Ltd. It is, at this stage, in disposal of the petition for vacating the interim order dated 7.02.2019 the District judge in disposal of both the applications at the instance of the respective parties vide paragraph nos.5, 6 & 7 by order dated 2.04.2019 passed the following:

"5. Law is well settled that non mentioning or wrong mentioning of provisions of law in the petition would not be of any relevance if the court had the requisite jurisdiction to pass an order. This court having jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction U/sec.9 of the Act as well as U/sec.151 of the C.P.C., the question of wrong mentioning of provisions of law becomes redundant. In order to invoke the jurisdiction to grant discretionary remedy such as injunction, the court will take into consideration of three ingredients namely prima-facie case, balance of convenience. In other words it is to be seen whether the comparative inconvenience or mischief which is likely to arise from withholding the injunction will be greater than which is likely to arise from granting it. The Court is also required to consider if the petitioner willo suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted in his favour. In order to get interim injunction, the petitioner/D.Hr is to satisfy the above points. It has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph on the background of the present proceeding which involves a joint venture agreement and consent award passed by the sole arbitrator Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Vikramjit Sen. The petitioner/D.Hr has to point out that there is serious question to be tried at the hearing and there is probability that he will be entitled to the relief sought by him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the I.A. No.58800/18 directed the State of Odisha to take necessary steps and then, mining may be resumed subject to compliance of all the regulatory requirements including clearances. After the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State of Odisha taken the first step by extending the validity period of mining lease for Iron Ore in Suleipat and directed the J.Dr/O.P to execute the 27 supplementary lease deed. The extension of the said validity period of lease are subjected to nine conditions vide Govt. of Odisha in Steel and Mines Deptt. Letter no.924, dated 12.2.19. Had the extension of the validity period been denied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as State of Odisha, the joint venture agreement would have expired/terminated automatically. In fact, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed by the extension of validity period of mining lease in favour O.P./J.Dr gives a new lease of life to the joint venture agreement executed between the petitioner and the O.P. and therefore, the petitioner/D.Hr has a prima-facie case in his favour.

Now, coming to the second point i.e. the balance of convenience or comparative inconvenience it is found that the petitioner/D.Hr has invested a huge amount of money after entering into a joint venture agreement. Although, the petitioner/D.Hr has filed an expenditure statement showing payment of details of D.R and S.R, as well as compensation U/sec. 21(5) of the Act and bank guarantee, but the documents such as D.D. and E-Challan are not produced. The mining operation in the Suleipat Iron Ore mines will boost the economic development of the State as well as the District and stopping of the same may cause a greater inconvenience to the State in general and the local people in particular. So far as the irreparable loss or injury that is likely to be arose in not granting the injunction is concerned, it can be adequately compensated by awarding damages.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner/D.Hr has a strong prima-facie case, but the other two ingredients such as the comparative inconvenience and the irreparable injury or loss do not leans in favour of the petitioner/D.Hr.

7. In the result, the interim order dated 7.2.19 passed by this court is vacated subject to furnishing a bank gurantee of Rs.5 (five) cores by the O.P./J.Dr within one month. The O.P./J.Dr is further directed not to dispose of or cause destruction to the Schedule-B property appended to the Execution petition till disposal of the Execution proceeding. It is made clear that the mining operation should not be resumed before full compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in I.a. No.58800/18 and 28 the conditions laid by the Govt. of Odisha in its letter no.924 dated 12.2.19 and the date of resumption of mining operation shall be intimated to this court in shape of affidavit.

Both the petitions dated 25.1.19 filed U/sec. 151 C.P.C. on behalf of the Petitioner/D.Hr and the petition dated 7.2.19 filed on behalf of the O.P./J.Dr are disposed of accordingly. Put up on the date fixed for filing of show-cause by the O.P./J.Dr."

Reading both the orders dated 7.02.2019 and the order dated 2.04.2019 this Court finds, District Judge taking into account the revival of the J.V. agreement by virtue of the sole Arbitrator's award and for the renewal of the lease in favour of the JDr. for allowing for restoration of the mining operation by the competent authority in favour of the Judgment Debtor by virtue of the letter of the competent authority dated 12.02.2019, has come to the categoric findings finding prima facie case as well as irreparable loss in favour of the Decree Holder but somehow differed from his earlier view on balance of convenience by deciding the same in favour of the Judgment Debtor.

15. Reading the impugned order dated 2.04.2019, this Court again finds, there is finding on the prima facie case in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019 as clearly indicated in the end of 1st para of paragraph no.5 therein. But however, in paragraph no.6 therein the District Judge misinterpreted the issue of balance of convenience in spite of the finding that the Decree Holder has invested huge amount and on issue of irreparable loss decided the said issue in favour of the decree holder but on the premises that loss of the decree holder can be compensated by way of damages merely on the basis that unless the mines remain operative, there may be hampering on the Economic boost in the locality and the State may be the sufferer.

Going back to the conditions in the settlement award binding on both the parties, this Court finds, clause 2 & 4 of the conditions No.F therein reads as follows:-

"(2) The relationship between the parties shall be governed exclusively by the terms and conditions of the J.V. Agreement and all other allied Agreements executed between the parties on 12.04.2010 which shall be binding on both the parties. All other documents, understanding, disputes shall deemed not to be in existences and shall become legally inoperative with immediate effect in view of this settlement.

(4) On and from the date of execution of this Deed of Settlement between the parties, either of the parties shall have no grievance against each other. All the Sub-Judice claims of either of the parties against each other stands settled and closed."

Reading the above conditions forming part of the award since binds both the parties herein, this Court finds, the observation and finding of the District Judge on balance of convenience and part of irreparable loss in favour of the Judgment Debtor becomes bad.

This Court here observes that in deciding the question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss the District Judge has totally lost the sight of existence of a settlement award pending for execution as well as the clandestine conduct of Sri Dagara in misappropriating the minerals leased as well as entering into new raising contracts with 3rd parties. From the basis of finding of the District Judge involving the impugned order, it is needless to observe here that neither the I.A. No.58800 of 2018 nor W.P.(C) No.114 of 2014 nor action of the Government of Odisha in issuing the letter dated 12.02.2019 involved the award in terms of settlement between the parties involved herein. From the 30 observation of the District Judge in the impugned order this Court finds, there is misreading of the development through the order in I.A. No.58800 of 2018 and letter dated 12.02.2019 by the District Judge. This Court, accordingly interfering in the findings of the District Judge on balance of convenience and that part on irreparable loss, answers both in favour of the Decree Holder.

16. On the question of maintainability of the application U/s.151 of C.P.C., this Court is in confirmity with the findings of the District Judge and thus affirms the view of the District Judge by holding that the application gets into the trap of Section 9 of the Act, 1996. Law is fairly well settled that mere nomenclation has nothing to do with the assessment, it is the purpose involving the same matters.

17. Taking into consideration the further submissions made by Sri J.Pattnaik, learned senior counsel and going through the application for re-calling the order dated 7.2.2019 at the instance of Mr. Dagara appearing at Annexure-9 at page-99 of W.P.(C) No.7537/2019, this Court finds, many of the grounds raised herein by Sri J.Pattnaik, learned senior counsel are silent in the application filed in Court below and finds at Annexure-9 to W.P.(C) No.7537/2019. Law does not permit a party to raise new grounds for the first time in the higher forum.

18. It is, in the circumstance, this Court interfering in the impugned order dated 2.04.2019 find place at Annexure-22 involving W.P.(C) No.7445 of 2019 and Annexure 1 in W.P.(C) No.7537 of 2019 sets aside the impugned order dated 2.04.2019 thereby reviving the order dated 7.02.2019 passed by the District Judge. The direction therein shall remain operative till disposal of 31 the execution proceeding No.1 of 2019. For already appearances of the Judgment debtor in execution proceeding this Court also directs the District Judge, Mayurbhanj to conclude the hearing of the Execution Petition giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks hence. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 16.07.2019 along with the judgment of this Court.

19. Both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of with interference with the impugned order therein and allowing revival of order dated 7.02.2019 and with the other directions given hereinabove. However, there is no order as to cost.

.............................

(Biswanath Rath, J.) Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 9th day of July, 2019/A. Jena, Sr. Stenographer.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court