Disposed

Maharashtra Power Transmission Structures Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Chief Executive Officer Anshika Shaw v. Presiding Officer Commercial Court II Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2023/5762/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition under Article 227 sought to expedite pending arbitration proceedings before the Commercial Court, Lucknow. The High Court directed the Commercial Court to decide the matter within six months without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Commercial Court to decide the pending Section 34 petition within six months.

Maharashtra Power Transmission Structures Pvt. Ltd. Thru… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:73906

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5762 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Maharashtra Power Transmission Structures Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Chief Executive Officer Anshika Shaw Respondent :- Presiding Officer Commercial Court Ii Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Aftab Ahmad,Asma Shamim

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Syed Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel, who usually appears on behalf of U.P. Power Transmission Corporation was called upon by the Court noticing the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant petition.

¶8

A copy of this petition was served on Shri Puneet Chandra who was given time to peruse the same.

¶9

The petitioner has approached this Court only with a limited prayer that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending before the Commercial Court No.2, Lucknow which may be expedited.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the pleadings in the matter have already been exchanged between the parties and a number of dates have been fixed yet it has not been taken to its logical conclusion.

¶11

Shri Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that insofar as the order-sheets filed by the petitioner are concerned, it cannot be said that any delay is attributable to the respondent No.2. However, insofar as the expedition is concerned, the Legislature has already mandated the same by amending Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and to that extent he has no grievance.

¶12

Considering the fair stand taken by the respondent No.2 and also the fact that the matter is pending before the Commercial Court No.2, Lucknow since 2020 whereas after the amendment made in the Act of 1996 such petitions ordinarily should be decided preferably within a period of one year.

¶13

Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the case,

¶14

this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice can be served if the Commercial Court No.2, Lucknow is directed to take up the matter and make an endeavour to decide the same preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the Court concerned.

¶15

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Court concerned shall decide the matter on its own merits.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Rakesh/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Maharashtra Power Transmission Structures Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Chief Executive Officer Anshika Shaw v. Presiding Officer Commercial Court II Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Power Transmission Structures Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Chief Executive Officer Anshika Shaw v. Presiding Officer Commercial Court II Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Shanker Vs Anil Kumar and Others

State of U.P. through Secretary Irrigation Lucknow Vs Kamlesh Kumar Singh

Smt. Singari Devi and Another Vs Abdul Hafeez

Narpal Vs Smt. Ranno Devi and 6 Others

Smt. Aisha Khatoon Vs Hazi Malhey

Ram Gahan Singh Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunication Ministry Communication and 2 Others