Petitioner sought continuation of an interim order regarding blacklisting before an arbitrator. Court directed arbitrator to decide relevant applications within eight weeks and dismissed connected writ petitions as infructuous.
Treat writ petition as disposed; dismiss CM applications as infructuous.
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.
M/S SELVEL MEDIA SERVISES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Mishra and Ms. Vandita Nain, Advs.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ms. Aakanksha Nehra and Mr. Naman Tandon, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
3 If that be so, the respondent shall also be at liberty to file an application for vacation of the interim order.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the parties states, the writ petition be treated as disposed of. It is ordered accordingly.
CM Nos. 51641/2019 & 1303/2019
Dismissed as infructuous.
Dasti.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J AUGUST 01, 2019 /jg
M/S SELVEL MEDIA SERVISES PVT. LTD.
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
V. KAMESWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
