STATE OF ODISHA Vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State (petitioners). He submits, order no.19 dtd. 12/4/2022 passed by Court of Senior Civil Judge Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar (Executing Court) was made in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with materials irregularity. He submits, said Court ought to have considered that his client has right to exhaust civil remedy available by adjudication of the curative petition filed by it in the Supreme Court.

(2.) Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of opposite party and relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 to submit, thereby was declaration of law that execution proceeding should be concluded within six months. He refers to order sheet annexed in the petition to submit, first order passed by the Executing Court was on 15/7/2021.

(3.) Perused impugned order. There is recital that petitioners challenged the award, thereafter filed appeal and carried its failure to succeed, to the Supreme Court. On obtaining adjudication on their civil appeal in the Supreme Court, petitioner preferred review. That also went against it. Now they have filed curative petition. The Executing Court said in impugned order that merely filing of curative petition is not a ground to stay the further proceeding of the execution petition and rejected petitioners' prayer for stay.