Allowed

Sukh Lal Patel ( Wrongly Metioned as Suk Lal Patel and Other in the Impugned Order) v. Chief Engineer

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jan 2022WP227/23/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in this writ petition, issued directions to the District Judge, Raigarh, to expeditiously decide a pending challenge to an arbitration award under Section 34 within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Judge, Raigarh to decide MJC Civil No. 171/2019 preferably within six months from date of receipt of certified copy.

Sukh Lal Patel ( Wrongly Metioned as… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP (227) No. 23 of 2022

¶5

Sukh Lal Patel (wrongly mentioned as Suk Lal Patel and Other in the impugned order) S/o Lagan Say Patel, Aged about 60 years R/o village Chaple, P.S. and Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.).

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, By National Highways Authority of India, Lok Nirman Vibhag, National Road Area Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶9

Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶10

Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.).

¶11

--Respondents

¶12

For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Adv. For Respondent No.1: Mr. Ramakant Mishra, ASI For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Govt. Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board

¶14

13/01/2022

¶15

The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking directions to the Court of District Judge, Raigarh to expedite the proceeding in MJC Civil No. 171/2019 and conclude the same within stipulated time period framed by this Court.

¶16

Facts in short of the case are that the petitioner moved an application before respondent No.2 under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth ‘the Act’) and National Highway Act, 1956 in which award dated 03/10/2018 was passed. The said order was challenged under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Raigarh on

¶17

¶18

19/09/2019. The award passed by the Arbitrator was stayed vide order dated 17/12/2019. More than two years have elapsed but the matter has not been fixed for final arguments. Hence, this petition.

¶19

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶20

Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the learned District Judge, Raigarh to expeditiously decide the MJC Civil No. 171/2019, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶22

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶23

rahul

Sukh Lal Patel ( Wrongly Metioned as Suk Lal Patel and Other in the Impugned Order) v. Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukh Lal Patel ( Wrongly Metioned as Suk Lal Patel and Other in the Impugned Order) v. Chief Engineer

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

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Nandkumar Kori

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Vishnu Sahu

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajesh Yadav

Preetam Singh Gabel Vs Chinilal Sahu

Chandrabahadur, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Agrawal ( Wrongly Mentioned as Subhash Agrawal and Other in the Impugned Order) Vs Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Government