AFR BIRAT CHANDRA DAGARA Vs. ORISSA MANGANESE & MINERALS LTD.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Afr Birat Chandra Dagara
Orissa Manganese And Minerals Ltd.
Click here to view full judgement.
BISWANATH RATH,J. -
(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition involves a challenge to the order passed by the District Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada rejecting an application at the instance of the judgment-debtor objecting the executability of a decree / Arbitration Award between the parties.
(2.) The dispute involves here has a long career. Main dispute involves mining lease over an area of 618 hcts. at Suleipat in Mayurbhanj District executed originally in favour of one Shri Bajranglal Padia for a term of 30 years. Subsequently, the lease hold was transferred by said Padia to the petitioner, the judgment- debtor. The judgment-debtor and the opposite party, the decree- holder, who in the process entered into an agreement for raising of iron ore in the petitioner's Suleipat lease area from April, 2010, constituting a Joint Venture Company, establishment of a manufacturing plant and undertaking the renewal of mining and all statutory clearances at its own cost, with further condition to set up a manufacturing unit in the name of Joint Venture Company in the State of Odisha. It is while the matter continuing as such, a dispute arose between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder involving a notice dated 29.10.2015 to the petitioner for invoking Arbitration Clause under the Joint Venture agreement for settlement of the dispute. Parties landed in dispute which ended in filing of SLP(C) Nos.13599/2016, 13803/2016 and 13824/2016 disposed of on 1.7.2016. Finally under the direction of the Hon'ble apex Court, Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Vikramjit Bose was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties. Consequent upon appointment of the sole Arbitrator at the instance of the Hon'ble apex Court, the arbitration proceeding was ultimately concluded with a settlement award on consent of both the parties and the arbitration award was consequently passed in terms of the settlement therein on 20.1.2018. Consequent upon passing of the award on settlement, the decree-holder initiated an execution proceeding bearing Execution Petition No.1/2019 under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Order being passed involving an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. restraining the judgment-debtor from carrying out the mining operation, the judgment-debtor filed a petition to recall the same. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, Mayurbhanj on the above application, the judgment-debtor carried a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6353/2019 to this Court. This Court hearing the parties was pleased to set aside the order passed by the District Judge dated 7.3.2019 thereby remitting the matter this Court directed the District Judge, Mayurbhanj to re-dispose of the application dated 21.2.2019. This application was again disposed of by the order of the District Judge, Mayurbhanj. This time the decree-holder being aggrieved by the order of the District Judge filed W.P.(C) 7445/2019. The judgment-debtor also simultaneously being aggrieved by a portion of the same order filed W.P.(C) No.7537/2019 in this Court. In the meantime, one of the parties moved the Hon'ble apex Court in filing SLP, which was disposed of on 26.4.2019 requesting therein to the High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition as early as possible keeping in view the urgency involving the matter. Following the direction of the Hon'ble apex Court, this Court upon disposal of both the matters passed judgment on 9.7.2019 therein while setting aside the order dated 2.4.2019, this Court allowed revival of the order dated 7.2.2019. Involving the judgment dated 9.7.2019 in disposal of the above writ petitions, the judgment-debtor again filed S.L.P.(C) No.16647 of 2019 and the Hon'ble apex Court by order dated 2.8.2019 dismissed the SLP indicated herein above with direction to the District Judge to adjudicate and pass order in the execution proceeding. It is at this stage of the matter, the petitioner, judgment-debtor filed an application though having no nomenclature but appears to be an application in the guise of objection to the executability of the settlement award being passed by the sole Arbitrator. This application having been rejected by the District Judge, vide Annexure-1 gives rise to filing of the present C.M.P.
(3.) In advancing his argument, Sri A.Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner taking to the entire history involving the case in different rounds of litigation to this Court and also involving different rounds of litigation to the Hon'ble apex Court and also taking into some of the developments taken place in between in the matter of introduction of new provision, vide the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, further taking this Court to the objection so filed by the judgment-debtor before the District Judge, more particularly through the grounds 'A' to 'S' therein appearing in the additional affidavit dated 1.10.2019 filed in the present C.M.P., reiterated the stand taken in the court below and attempted to submit that there has been no consideration of the case of the petitioner by the District Judge in the disposal of such objection. Further referring to the provision through the new Rules being an obstruction to work out the settlement award, Sri Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, judgment-debtor contended that the execution proceeding since invalid, the objection filed at their instance should have been allowed. It is in the circumstance, Sri Patnaik sought for intervention of this Court in the impugned order at Annexure-1. Sri Patnaik, learned senior counsel, however submitted that for the compromise arbitral award, the judgment-debtor has no scope for filing application for setting aside such award under Section 34 of the Act, 1996.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.