CD ”mumwwwmmmwwmwwn—mmuaanawmwmb g Erma, amt…
Disclaimer Order § conclusive appeal dismissed being infructuous due to passing of final award; Interim injunction allowed in order to maintain status quo pending dismissal.
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.
CD
(7{,gAs/v
WW gaf’rm m mmm, WTWg? g3mg ”mumwwwmmmwwmwwn—mmuaanawmwmb g Erma, amt {lg/2004 g
/ f‘awm m3??? mama grew aE—‘ma‘v gréaai, Ema ém¥h€ mm”; féri’n‘ég,
mmmwaf‘aa'mgw EM. g
-‘rgq‘r
w.
3%‘ram%nm Juuuwuwm¢
$§T%:‘d$~3m
a (TI-{5.337% ”WW/a‘:rf%ciaf ya
gu-?fa"rm‘7c§ n'fk? Emma 2mg uz ma /C( /2—WWWimamEWHT‘Qmy n2 mm 3- mam Jimw H'Twm mg Io W ~ WT gra°r E’Trmu 31g e mm 5—. wawféarxc‘a’i’ Efrmt: 3mg L} am, (g whw$r5Ema‘n‘riw“u’rha‘mr; 3m$WT,WWT mar g 733mg
a a s;- fmtm 31W f‘a‘Emm 3mg 38 am Q’K f Emmam, Emr wwm Wma mm; am mam, (Ema wage“, f‘mm mam 31m. g / w‘ra aircrf‘? imT ugr‘wir21m mfzrfazm nae ”mwm_ww-ému-ummsu m~-m@-munmmu—m 5mm ,m‘m 97/2/ooug ‘ ‘mu a“??? gwm’ FTaT asfam, WWW—(WIT m‘rr M'Eaa airm‘a mwamorik‘mm aif‘trftitrzr § crrfm 5.1% 1" rf‘w 4/38/200u % f‘aw; Marmf‘aa’”F’m WEE? Fcfrmw fmr mm
¢-—muw—mnunmw~aaa—nam”m‘W mam? gmw-u.=_m-oumagmwa/-
W
02.09.2005
'counsel
Shri Anand Gupfa, for ‘rhe appeHan‘r.
I.A. No. 2316 of 2005;
'This
is an applicafion filed by +he‘ appellan'r for dismissal of This
Misc. Appeal No. 1155 of 2005.
Learned counsel for Whe’appellan‘r submifs ”rhm‘ fhis appeal was
filed against fhe inferim mar-d whereas final award has now been
passed, fherefore, ‘l'he appeal has become infrucfuous.
This inferim applica‘rinn is allowed.
The appeal is dismissed as infrucfuous.
SP/FS/ 005 - 20,000
; h
i '
sq,
/ <br>1’ v
Appellant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
