Dismissed¶28

M/S.Rama Chandi Enterprises v. Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd.

Orissa HC18 Jun 2024WP(C)/14702/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution; vacatur of interim order (Misc. Case No.14604 of 2016, order of 12.09.2016); claim for release of pending bills against ISAR Engineers (P) Ltd.; parties: Rama Chandi Enterprises, Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd.; counsel: Jagannath Gochhayat, Samir Kumar Mishra (Sr.), Satya Sundar Kanungo, Sidhant Kumar Dwibedi; bench: Justice K.R. Mohapatra; decided 18.06.2024; no substantive issue adjudicated; no statutes or precedents relied upon.

What did the court decide?

Since learned counsel for the Petitioner was not prepared to argue the matter, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶28

M/S.Rama Chandi Enterprises Vs Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd. — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Jun-2024 13:58:28

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C) No. 14702 OF 2016

¶5

M/s. Rama Chandi Enterprises

¶6

…. Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Jagannath Gochhayat, Advocate

¶8

-versus-

¶9

Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd. and others

¶10

…. Opp. Parties

¶11

Mr. Satya Sundar Kanungo, Advocate (For Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2)

¶12

Mr. Sidhant Kumar Dwibedi, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.3)

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

¶15

Order No.

¶16

ORDER 18.06.2024

¶17

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to the ISAR Engineers (P) Ltd., Khurda-Opposite Party No.3 to release the pending bills.

¶19

Mr. Gochhayat, learned counsel for the Petitioner made a prayer to take up the matter after lunch interval submitting that Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate will argue the matter.

¶20

Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3 vehemently objects to the same and submits that the Petitioner is in habit of taking adjournment in the matter by someway or other. The present prayer is one of such attempt. He further submits that he has preoccupation after lunch interval.

¶21

Mr. Kanungo, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.1

¶22

& 2 submits that the petition does not merit consideration and should have been dismissed in limine.

¶23

Page 1 of 2

¶24

// 2 //

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Jun-2024 13:58:28

¶27

Since there is a serious objection to the prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant the prayer made by Mr. Gochhayat, learned counsel for the Petitioner to take up the matter after lunch interval. In spite of request of this Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner repeated his prayer to take up the matter after lunch interval submitting that Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate will argue the matter.

¶28

Since learned counsel for the Petitioner is not prepared to argue the matter, the writ petition is dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶29

Interim order dated 12^th September, 2016 passed in Misc. Case No.14604 of 2016 stands vacated.

¶30

¶31

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶32

Page 2 of 2

M/S.Rama Chandi Enterprises v. Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Rama Chandi Enterprises v. Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binapani Das Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Samal Vs Superitendent Engineer, Tpcodl, Cuttack

Surendra Kumar Sabarwal Vs Om Prakash Daga

Debasmita Sahoo Vs Ranjan Kumar Sahoo

Biswarupa Padhi Vs Simanchal Maharana

Manjushree Dash Vs State of Odisha