m ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHATTISAGRH ^^.^S»rj-» MCC.NO.M4 /2QQ7 ®"8iais8 MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASE ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.1.2007 PASSED IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 142/2004 BY HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. Through its Company Secretary i & power of attorney holder. Balco Nager, Korba. C.G. VERSUS PETITIONER Kaiser Aluminium Tecnical Services Inc... .. 6177 Sunol Boulevard Plesanton California 945667769. RESPONDENT APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 ^j §\<^ OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE N XI-HC-78 3TT^T^)T^J4) cT^T3TT^T$h^lGb ^ HTHCtT ?h+1|ct> 3^T ^j^Krl^, ^TTl^Jl(o, [s«rll^^< . ..^&fX0:.^.^?'^. 200 311^1 <-|5|ch (y<i^<s<^) ?^TT^K^cf3TT^T 15.2.2007 Mr. Abhi^iek Sinha, Adv<| Mr. Sanjay S Agarwal, Ac| Heard. chl^?<rl^-l ^II^KrlT ^ teT^t <[^^1< ^3Tf^:T3T[^T >cate for the petitioner. Ivocate for the respondent. The petitioner has filed) this application for direction to the bistrict Jud9e, Bilaspur to ifefund the sum ®fRs.4,00,00,000/- deposited in cash ond return t^e bouik guarantee of Rs.2,00,00,000/- to the petitioner to9e1+ier with| was deposited in pursucnce o^ Learned counsel for the interest accmed thereon, as 1+ie same the order dated 2.9.2004 po«sed in Misc. Appeal No.889 of 2004 b^ the Dividion Beneh of this Court. petitioner submits that Misc. Appeals No.889 of 2004 & 890 of 200|4 haye been dismissed by the bivision Bench of this Court on 10.8.2p05 against which the petttioner has preferred a Special Leave Peti-| Court and the same has be^ •ion (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme 1 admit^ed for hearing. He further submits that on the application |of the petitioner this Court vide order dated 10.8.2005 passed in Civi|l Revision No.142 of 2004 had issued directions to the effect thatj tilt this revision is disposed of the amounts kept in deposit with tltelearned &istrict Judge, Bilaspur witl not be paid to the respondent favour of the leamed District ^ submits that Civil Revision N<| cnd the bank guarantees furnished in udge will not be enca^ied. He further .142 of 2004 was dismissed by this XI-HC-78 3TI^T^)TR^i<=h cT§TT3TT^T5h^i<=b 3^T ^jqicrt^, ^Tfl^JI(o, [Gi<^Hy< +11^1<<11 ^rRTc^ ^ 200 3^1^1 ^5|ch (^i^st^) ^<n'W^f?cf3TT^T -^-1 <=hi^I<n41-i HTR^ff ^f te^ <Ri<•<.!< ^3Tf^q"3TT^T Court- vide order dated 31.1.20p7 with a findin9 that the civij revision is not maintainable. It is subm|tted that since Miwellaneous Appeals No. 889 of 2004 & 890 of 200^ as also Gjyil Revision No.i42 of 2004 have been dismissed by tl^is Court only on the ground of maintainability and not on meri^ and since the Spedal Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the petit|loner against the dismissal of Misc, for final hearing, the order dated ilsion No.142 of 2004 be modified in Appeals is already admitt'ed 10.8.2005 passed in Civil Revi| terms of prayer made in this ap|?lication. It is further contended that the respondent is a foreig^ company incorporated . under the appropriate laws of the United [Stoites and on enquiries the petitioner has tearnt -Hiat 1+ie responden1| company is an insotvent company and proceedings have commenced a^ainst the respondent company in the bankruptcy Court of the Uitiited States* The said bankruptcy proceedings have been complet^d (ind.pursuarrt to re-organization the respondent company ceased to €|xist, I have heard learned cou^isel for the petitiorNBr, Perusal of order dated ^0.8.2005 passed in Civil ftevision No. 142 of 2004 reveats -Hiat th4 Dtvision Bench of this Court after considerin9 the arguments a4'anced on behalf of 1+ie petitioner directed that "till this civil reyi^ion is dispossd of Itie amounts kept in deposit with 1+ie learned Distr|ct Judge. BiJdspur will not be paid to L; XI-HC-78 3TT^T^)Ti<^ich cT§-TT3TT^T$hHlch ftoshan/- n ^/^ w cv 3^T ^II^Krl^, ^Tfl^^Ko, fc<^l^< *11*4C<11 »»*11<ih ^ 200 % 3<1^1 ^^tcb (<i^i^G<^) ^Rn'w^f^T^n^i —><^ the respondent and the bank learned District Judge will application also it reveals thatj Oistrict Judge, Bilaspur in pujr passed in M.A. No.889 of dismissed by this Court on 10^ already preferredl a Special pendin9 adjudication before th^ Therefore, in view of biyision Bench of this Court in| of the considered opinion modification of the order desirable. In the result, the petil^i observations. Consequently. M.W.P. N^ are also stand disposed of< 2(304. thlat datfcd <=hl<M?(yl41^ HTR^ff ^f te^t <f^^l< ^3Tf^R"3:TT^T Iguarontees fumished in favour of the hot be encashed". Froni the instant the amount was deposited before the ^rsuance of the order dated 2.9.2004 slp04. The misceilaneous oppeals were ^2005 agair^t whidi the petitioner has 1-eave Petition (SLP) and 1+ie same is Hon'bte Supreme Court. fhe order dated 10.8.2005 passed by Civil Reyision No.1^/04, this Court is any further dlrectlon by way of ^d 10.8.2005 is neither expedient nor i1|ion is disposed of with the aforesaid ,221/07 A I.A. Nos.341/07 & 342/07 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.