Petitioner challenged an order by writ petition despite having a statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court held the writ petition not maintainable and dismissed it on the ground of alternative 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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20553
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4040 of 2025
Petitioner :- M/S Krishna Gears Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Tomar,Srijan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Against the order impugned the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable.
Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Kushal
Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is available.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S Krishna Gears Private Limited
State Of U.P.
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
