Petitioner withdrew the writ petition under the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court seeking alternative remedy in Civil Court regarding an arbitration clause. Petition dismissed as withdrawn.
Leave granted; petition dismissed as withdrawn; all pending applications disposed of.
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.
$~A-29
RAJAT ASSOCIATES ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Arvind Kumar, Adv. versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION..... Respondent Through Ms.Aakanksha Kaul, Additional Standing Counsel for SDMC
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
O R D E R % 11.02.2020
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the stand taken by the respondents, namely, that there is no arbitration clause in the agreement, the petitioner would like to withdraw the petition and seek his remedy as per law before the Civil Court.
Granting leave and liberty as sought, petition is dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2020 n
RAJAT ASSOCIATES
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
JAYANT NATH
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
