Petitioners sought writ directions to recover payment from embankment proceeds. The court held that money claims must be obtained by decree and execution in the Civil Court, refusing to issue writ orders. Petition raised in 2022 disposed same day.
Writ petition disposed without direction for payment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.16139 of 2022 (Through hybrid mode)
Usha Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd., …. Petitioners BBSR and another
Mr. A. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
Canara Bank, BBSR and others …. Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate for O.P.1
Mr. A. Dash, Advocate for O.P.3
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
Order No.
02.08.2022
03. 1. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, and had moved the writ petition on 6th July, 2022. He had submitted, his clients’ did the work but payment is outstanding. Completion certificate dated 21st October, 2021 could not be furnished in time to the employer (opposite party no.2). The employer encashed the bank guarantee. His clients seek relief of appropriate directions being made for payment, from the money obtained by encashing the bank guarantee.
party no.1 (petitioners’ banker). On query from Court he submits, his client
furnished the bank guarantee at instance of petitioners, in favour of opposite
party no.2. On further query from Court he submits, the bank guarantee was
Page 1 of 2
2
invoked by the employer and proceeds paid out to it.
whereupon, completion certificate was issued by the employer. In the circumstances, his client is entitled to proceeds of the guarantee.
has chosen not to appear. Opposite party no.3 claims to be principal contractor. The bank guarantee stood invoked and encashed. The money is claimed by petitioners and opposite party no.3, from opposite party no.2.
from Civil Court. No order can be made in the writ jurisdiction. Mr. Rath submits, this should not prevent his clients from approaching opposite party no.2 with their claim. The submission stands recorded.
(Arindam Sinha) Judge
Prasant
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ court can direct payment of outstanding dues from encashed bank guarantee instead of heading a civil decree.
Whether the petitioner and principal contractor can claim proceeds of an encashed bank guarantee against each other.
Usha Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another
Canara Bank, BBSR
Employer
Other
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
