The High Court dismissed a writ petition invoking Article 226, holding that since the petitioner has a specific remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to file an arbitration case before the District Judge, the court declines to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42081 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mohd. Haneef Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Islam Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Dube
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
Heard Shri Islam Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
The petitioner has remedy of filing an arbitration case before the District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
As such, we decline, to interfere in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019
sweta
( Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.) (Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the writ petition when a statutory arbitration remedy is available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Mohd. Haneef
State Of U P
Unknown Third Party
Unknown Fourth Party
Abhinava Upadhya
Ravi Nath Tilhari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
