Allowed¶46

Kalinga Ray v. Uco Bank, Bbsr

Orissa HC11 Feb 2025WA/2866/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; WA No. 2866 of 2024; decision 11.02.2025; Coram: Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice and M.S. Sahoo, Judge. Keywords: dismissal of writ petition as withdrawn allegedly without any prayer for withdrawal by counsel; recall of amendment order allowing 'enhancement of wages till regularization' (I.A. No.5997 of 2024 in W.P.(C) No.13691 of 2018); restoration of writ petition along with amendment application, objection thereto and recall application for fresh adjudication; UCO Bank, BBSR; file sent to administrative side for special assignment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25th September, 2024 set aside; writ petition restored along with the amendment application, objection thereto and the recall application for adjudication; file placed on the administrative side for special assignment; appeal disposed of.

Kalinga Ray Vs Uco Bank, Bbsr — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 25th September, 2024 dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn should be set aside and the writ petition restored for adjudication together with the amendment application, the objection thereto and the recall application.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 25th September, 2024 is set aside, the petitioner having expressed the wish to proceed with the writ petition along with the amendment.

¶46

Key takeaways

The writ petition along with the amendment application, the objection thereto and the recall application are restored for adjudication.ratio¶46
The file is to be placed on the administrative side for special assignment.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA No. 2866 of 2024, Kalinga Ray v. UCO Bank, BBSR and another) against order dated 25th September, 2024 of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.13691 of 2018 as withdrawn with liberty to file a better application. Appellant's Ground 10(A): no prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition was made by his counsel before the Single Bench, orally or by memo. Backdrop: amendment adding the prayer 'With enhancement of wages till regularization' allowed by order no.3 dated 16th May, 2024 in I.A. No.5997 of 2024 (bank's counsel absent); bank's objection dated 21st June, 2024 filed thereafter; bank's recall application dated 3rd September, 2024; amendment order recalled by order no.7 dated 5th September, 2024. By earlier order dated 28th January, 2025 this Division Bench noted the serious allegation and called for the bank's objection. Appellant stated before the Division Bench that he was prepared to prosecute the writ petition in its original form with the amendment. Held: impugned order set aside; writ petition along with the amendment application, objection thereto and the recall application restored for adjudication; file placed on the administrative side for special assignment; appeal disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WA No. 2866 of 2024

¶3

…. Kalinga Ray Appellant

¶4

Represented by Adv.Mr. S.N. Panda, Advocate

¶5

-versus- UCO Bank, BBSR and …. another

¶6

…. Respondents

¶7

Represented by Adv.Mr. S.K. Swain, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

¶10

ORDER 11.02.2025

¶11

Order No. 02. 1. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and Mr. Swain, learned advocate, for respondents-bank. Paragraphs 1

¶12

and 2 from our order dated 28^th January, 2025 are reproduced below.

¶13

“1. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and submits, his client has preferred appeal against order dated 25^th September, 2024 made by the

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

learned single Judge. Text of the order is reproduced below.

¶16

“1. This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement.

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to file better application, if any cause of action arises in future.

¶18

3. In view of such submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty as submitted.”

¶19

Drawing attention to paragraph-10(A) he submits, he, as counsel for appellant who was writ petitioner, never made prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition. Paragraph-10(A) is reproduced below.

¶20

“ 10. Grounds of Appeal

¶21

(A) That on behalf of the appellant no prayer was made by the counsel for withdrawal of the writ petition either by submitting memo in writing or submitting orally for the same, in course of hearing before the Single Bench.”

¶22

2. We have serious allegation made before us. Mr. Swain, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondents-bank.

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

Said respondent may file objection in respect of aforesaid, to be accepted on adjourned date upon advance copy served.”

¶25

On query made Mr. Panda submits, his client is prepared to prosecute the writ petition in its original form along with the amendment sought and allowed but subsequently recalled.

¶26

2. The writ file is in Court. It appears from order no.3 dated 16^th May, 2024, upon hearing the parties the learned single Judge allowed the amendment. Mr. Swain submits, he was not present. Prayer in the amendment application dated 29^th April, 2024 is reproduced below.

¶27

“The petitioner prays before the Hon’ble Court to be graciously pleased to allow the I.A. and permit to add the following lines by way of amendment in prayer, “With enhancement of wages till regularization ”and oblige”

¶28

Objection dated 21^st June, 2024 was filed by respondents-bank. Text

¶29

of said order is reproduced below.

¶30

Order no.3 dated 16^th May, 2024.

¶31

“1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶32

2. Heard.

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

3. This I.A. has been filed by the Petitioner for amendment of the prayer of the W.P.(C) No.13691 of 2018.

¶35

4. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the averments made in the Interim Application, the amendment is allowed.

¶36

5. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.”

¶37

3. Respondents then filed recall application dated 3^rd September, 2024. By order no.7 dated 5^th September, 2024, order no.3 dated 16^th May, 2024, allowing the amendment, was recalled. Text of order no.7 dated 5^th September, 2024 is reproduced below.

¶38

“1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶39

2. This I.A. at the instance of the Opposite Party No.1 is filed for recalling the order dated 16.05.2024 passed in I.A. No.5997 of 2024.

¶40

3. Considering the submissions made by the parties and looking to the averments made in this I.A., this Court recalls the order dated 16.05.2024 passed in I.A. No.5997 of 2024.

¶41

4. This I.A. is, accordingly, disposed of. ”

¶42

4. It will appear from preceding paragraphs 2 and 3, order no.3

¶43

dated 16^th May, 2024 was made in presence of learned advocates for

¶44

Page 4 of 5

¶45

the parties. Mr. Swain says, he was not present. The amendment stood allowed. Objection to the amendment application was filed thereafter. Yet thereafter stood filed recall application. By order no.7 dated 5^th September, 2024 the amendment order was recalled.

¶46

5. In view of petitioner wanting to proceed with the writ petition along with the amendment, we set aside impugned order. The writ petition along with the amendment application, objection thereto and the recall application are restored for adjudication. Place the file on the administrative side for special assignment.

¶47

6. The appeal is disposed of.

¶48

( Arindam Sinha ) Acting Chief Justice

¶49

( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge

¶50

Prasant

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 11-Feb-2025 20:10:35

¶53

Page 5 of 5

Kalinga Ray v. Uco Bank, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalinga Ray v. Uco Bank, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Odisha Vs Priyanka Mohanty

Jayanti Jena Vs State of Odisha

Jayanti Jena Vs State of Odisha.

M/S. Anil Kumar Prusty, Nayagarh Vs Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Odisha,Cuttack

Pramod Kumar Prusty Vs Commissioner of Ct and GST

Pramod Kumar Prusty Vs Commissioner of Ct and GST