Misc. Case No. 16115 of 2016. Case: Orissa State Beverages Corporation Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors.. High Court of Orissa (India)
| Case Number | Misc. Case No. 16115 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: B. Dasmohaptra and B.N. Bhol, Counsels |
| Judges | S.N. Prasad, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule 1; Section 32; Constitution of India - Article 226; Employees' Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 7A(2), 7B |
| Judgement Date | February 10, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Orissa (India) |
Judgment:
S.N. Prasad, J.
-
This case is listed today on Board for passing appropriate order in Misc. Case No. 16115 of 2016, which has been filed by opposite party No. 3 in the writ petition under the provisions of Chapter-VI, Rule 27-A of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 for recall of the judgment dated 15.2.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3164 of 2012.
-
This Court has gone through the averments made in Misc. Case No. 16115 of 2016 and from its perusal it is evident that the instant Miscellaneous Application has been filed by opposite party No. 3 pursuant to the order dated 13.9.2016 passed in W.A. No. 373 of 2016 filed against the order dated 15.2.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3164 of 2012, which has been dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to opposite party No. 3 to file an application for recalling of the ex parte order passed by the writ court. This Court has further found from the averments made in the instant application that the ground taken for recall of the order dated 15.2.2016 is that the same has been passed without providing opportunity of being heard to him and as such, the same is an ex parte order and thereby, he has seriously been prejudiced.
-
Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Orissa State Beverages Corporation Ltd. has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the learned counsel representing opposite party No. 3 and has submitted that the application has been filed suppressing the material fact since it is incorrect to say that no notice has been issued prior to passing of the order in W.P.(C) No. 3164 of 2012 and as such, it is an ex parte order, while the fact is otherwise. He submits that the opposite party No. 3, M/s. Panthar Security Service has been arrayed as opposite party No. 3 giving address of its registered office at 153/4, Jessore Road, Damdam, Kolkata-7000074 and also its local office at Plot No. 532, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar and as such, steps have been taken for issuance of notice upon opposite party No. 3 in pursuance to the order passed by this Court dated 11.12.2012 in both the addresses. He submits that the notice issued upon opposite party No. 3 in the address at its local office at Bhubaneswar has been returned un-served, but the notice issued upon the registered office at Kolkata has duly been served. He has substantiated his argument by placing the acknowledgment receipt of local office at Bhubaneswar as well as the registered office at Kolkata, which bears the acknowledgment receipt of the person concerned giving therein the date of receipt as "17/2" and as such, the very ground taken for recall of the order dated 15.2.2016 is not correct and hence, on this ground alone, the instant application needs to be dismissed. He has further argued that from perusal of the averments made in the Miscellaneous Application although the same has been captioned as "recall of the judgment dated 15.2.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3164 of 2012", having been filed under Chapter-VI, Rule 27-A of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948, but in the garb of a recall...
To continue reading
Request your trial