AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is a company registered in Jaipur. Opposite party no.1 purporting to be a small scale enterprise moved the Council, here in Cuttack. He submits, it will appear from impugned award dated 19th February, 2020 that there was omission on part of the Council to conduct conciliation between the parties.
That apart the Council did not have jurisdiction since, agreement between the parties also provided for conciliation and that courts in Rajasthan will have jurisdiction over it. He relies on judgment dated 15th December, 2021 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.2899 of 2021 (Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. State of Rajasthan and others) to submit, inter alia, similar jurisdiction point was taken in the case and the award set aside and quashed on it being found to be a nullity.
Mr. Baral, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 (award holder). He wants service of the writ petition. Mr. Mohapatra submits, it will be served during course of this day.
On query from Court Mr. Baral is unable to show from impugned award that there is reference to conciliation undertaken by the Council. It appears, impugned award was passed ex-parte. On further query from Court Mr. Mohapatra submits notice of execution case has not yet been received by his client.
Service be made on opposite party no.2 by course of this day.
The interim application will be considered on adjourned date.
List on 19th October, 2022. In event the execution case is listed in the meantime, petitioner has liberty to produce this order and pray for adjournment.
……………………………