Petition challenging Additional Director's order based on a Section 54 amendment agreement signed by parties was dismissed as misconceived.
Petition rejected with no order as to costs.
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 OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 39 of 2001
Date of decision: 06.12.2010.
Rakesh Chandel and others …Petitioners.
Versus
Kulwant Singh and others …Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioners: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents 1 to 3: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent No.4. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G.
Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)
1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
2
the statement of amendment has been signed by Piar Singh and Bhagat Ram they cannot challenge the same. Hence, this petition is totally misconceived and is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.
6th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether parties can challenge an amended agreement under Section 54 once signed by all parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Chandel and others
Kulwant Singh and others
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
