Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an execution court order. The court held that relief against a final arbitral award must be sought via proper appeal, not during execution, dismissing the writ petition as misconceived.
Petition and pending application dismissed; no liability for relief.
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.118 of 2013.
Date of decision: 1.5.2013
Sadeek Mohammed ……….Petitioner.
Versus
L & T Finance Ltd. and another …….Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Deep Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate.
For the Respondents : None
Kuldip Singh, J ( Oral).
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by judgment debtor No.2 against the order dated 21.2.2013 passed in Execution Petition No.24/10 of 2012 by learned Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Court No.2, Paonta Sahib.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes
company got petitioner falsely implicated. The petitioner is not liable to pay any amount of the loan. The judgment debtor No.1 is responsible for the payment of loan amount.
May 1, 2013 (sks)
( Kuldip Singh), Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an execution court can entertain objections after an arbitration award has attained finality.
Whether the petitioner's plea of misjoinder and non-liability as surety is maintainable in this context.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sadeek Mohammed
L & T Finance Ltd.
another
Kuldip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
