Allowed

Executive Engineer/Engineer Res Division,Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana,Red,Unnao v. Commercial Court- 1, Lucknow and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 May 2024A227/480/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 227 arose from arbitration proceedings whose mandate terminated on expiry of Section 29-A, followed by an execution application against all judgment debtors. Opposite parties no.6 to 8 applied to be transposed as petitioners; the court allowed the application in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Opposite parties no.6 to 8 allowed to be transposed as petitioners nos.2 to 4; interim order continued till next date of listing.

Executive Engineer/Engineer Res Division,Pradhan Mantri Gramin… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 480 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Executive Engineer/Engineer Res Division,Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana,Red,Unnao Respondent :- Commercial Court- 1, Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Dipak Seth,Ankita Srivastava,C.S.C.,Ram Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Order on IA-09/24:

¶6

Heard.

¶7

This application has been filed on behalf of the State of U.P. through Chief Engineer (East Region) Rural Engineering Department, U.P. Lucknow, Superintending Engineer/Chief Executive Officer, UPRRDA, U.P. Rural Engineering Department Lucknow Circle, Lucknow and UPRRDA through its Chief Executive Officer having its office at New Berry Road, Lucknow, who have been arrayed as opposite parties no.6 to 8 in the writ petition, for being transposed as petitioner nos.2 to 4 in the writ petition.

¶8

The memo of writ petition mentions the aforesaid parties as proforma opposite parties/judgment debtor and the petitioner is also a judgement debtor. It has inter alia been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the opposite parties no.6 to 8 being preoccupied in some official chores and being unavailable for this reason, the petition was filed by the petitioner on the basis of competent instructions, arraying the opposite parties no. 6 to 8 as proforma opposite parties. The opposite parties no.6 to 8 support the petition and want to be

¶9

transposed as the petitioners in order to obliviate any controversy and adjudication of the petitioner on its merit.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner, even before this application having been brought on record, had sought time for transposing the opposite parties no.6 to 8 as the petitioners and, therefore, he does not oppose, rather supports the application.

¶11

Sri Dipak Seth, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 to 5 has opposed the application submitting that this application could only have been filed by the petitioner and not by the opposite parties.

¶12

The petition arises out of arbitration proceedings instituted by the opposite parties no.2 to 5 against the petitioner and the opposite parties no.6 to 8, which could not be taken to a logical end as the mandate of learned Arbitrator got terminated upon expiry of the period provided under Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thereafter, the opposite parties no.2 to 5 have filed an execution application for execution of the decision of the adjudicator rendered prior to institution of arbitration proceedings. The execution case has been filed against the petitioner and the opposite parties no.6 to 8 and all of them are aggrieved by the execution proceedings.

¶13

In these circumstances, the application filed by the opposite parties no.6 to 8 for their transposition as petitioners, deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.

¶14

Accordingly the application is allowed . The learned counsel for the petitioners may carry out the necessary corrections in the memo of writ petition forthwith.

¶15

List this case on 06.05.2024, as fresh.

¶16

The interim order granted earlier shall continue to remain in force till the next date of listing.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 3.5.2024 Ram.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Executive Engineer/Engineer Res Division,Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana,Red,Unnao v. Commercial Court- 1, Lucknow and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer/Engineer Res Division,Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana,Red,Unnao v. Commercial Court- 1, Lucknow and 4 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Executive Engineer/Engineer Res Division,Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana,Red,Unnao vs Commercial Court- 1, Lucknow and 4 Others

Ashma vs Param Jeet Singh

Mohd. Naseem Alias Naseem vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 7 Others

Shivam Tandon and Another vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chief Regional Manager Lko. and Another

Shivam Tandon and Another vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chief Regional Manager Lko. and Another

Barsati vs District Deputy Director of Consolidation Shrawasti and 5 Others