The State Government companytended that the decree is number executable against it as it was number brought on record and there is numberdecree against it.
Admittedly, the Ordinance taking over the assets of the Charge Chrome Division of the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. was promulgated on 24th September, 1991 and the suit filed by the respondents was decreed against the Charge Chrome Division on 12th November 1991 without bringing the State Government on record as party defendant.
The trial companyrt rejected the objection raised by the appellant on the basis of decision rendered by this Court in State of Orissa v. Klockner and Company and Others 1996 8 SCC 377 .
Hence this appeal.
117 of 1998 before the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Against that judgment and order, the appellant preferred C.R. No.
Short question involved in this matter iswhether an ex parte decree passed against a Company which was taken over by the Orissa Ordinance No.8 of 1991 by the State Government can be executed against the State Government even though the Government of Orissa was number brought on record before passing of the decree?
Thereafter, the judgment creditor filed an Execution Application on 24th October, 1994 for recovering the amount decreed from the Government of Orissa as well as other respondents.
64 of 1998 against the said order by companytending that decree against it is number executable.
Leave granted.
Shah, J. Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
However the revision filed by the State Government was dismissed.
The Orissa Mining Corporation Limited also filed C.R. No.
