An arbitration application regarding execution of a warrant to trace a seized vehicle. The Advocate Commissioner's report was accepted, additional remuneration of Rs.45,000 ordered, and interim custody of the vehicle continued for 90 days subject to further orders under Section 17.
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.
Arb.Appln.No.46 of 2024
Arb.Appln.No.46 of 2024
C.SARAVANAN, J.
The learned Advocate Commissioner, appointed by this Court on 24.01.2023, has successfully executed the warrant from New Delhi, although, it was informed earlier by the applicant that the vehicle was in Lucknow. Today, the learned Advocate Commissioner has filed a report dated 19.03.2024. Same is taken on record.
has spent three days to trace out the seized vehicle which had moved to Delhi and therefore the Advocate Commissioner has traveled to Delhi from Lucknow, Court is inclined to order an additional remuneration of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) to the Advocate Commissioner. The applicant is directed to pay the same to the Advocate Commissioner.
Arb.Appln.No.46 of 2024
Additional Remuneration is paid to the learned Advocate Commissioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned Advocate Commissioner shall return the warrant to the Registry.
19.03.2024
jas
Arb.Appln.No.46 of 2024
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jas
Arb.Appln.No.46 of 2024
19.03.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether additional remuneration should be paid to the Advocate Commissioner who executed the warrant for the seized vehicle, and what interim arrangements should govern custody of the vehicle.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
