The High Court at Calcutta dismissed a Section 11(6) application for appointment of an arbitrator as it was no longer pressed after the petitioner accepted the respondent's appointment.
None granted; the application was dismissed as not pressed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE
AP/885/2019
PREMCO GPT(JV) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble JUSTICE ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Date : 19th January, 2021.
The Court: It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that although
the petitioner filed this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for
appointment of an Arbitrator but subsequently the petitioner has accepted the Arbitrator appointed by the respondent railway.
In view of the above fact, Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate has produced a communication in writing received by him from the petitioner not to press the present application.
Accordingly, the application, AP/885/2019 stands
dismissed as not pressed.
(ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.)
mg
2
Premco GPT(JV)
Union of India
Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
