The single-judge bench dismissed the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for maintainability, stating that no Section 34 objection was filed. Liberty to seek appropriate remedy was granted.
Appeal dismissed with liberty to avail appropriate remedy.
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. - 5
Case :- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 89 of 2024
Appellant :- Adalat Respondent :- Commercial Court Faizabad And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Govind Kumar Chourasia,Mahesh Chandra Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that this appeal is not maintainable as this appeal has been filed without filing any objection under Section 34.
Shri Mahesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant despite repeated queries could not answer the queries, therefore the appeal is dismissed with liberty to avail appropriate remedy as may be available under law.
...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 7.5.2024 Haseen U.
Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal under Section 37 was maintainable despite the absence of contesting the仲裁 award under Section 34.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Adalat
Commercial Court Faizabad
Rajnish Kumar
Haseenuddin
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
