The Arbitration Appeal was disposed of as infructuous. The court noted that pursuant to an earlier order, possession of the establishment had been handed over to Respondent no.2 and a consequential registered transfer deed had been executed, rendering the current appeal unnecessary.
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.
ARBA No.6 of 2007
Considering the rival contentions of the parties, after going through the order dated 1.05.2007 passed in ARBA No.4 of 2007 and taking note of the submission of Shri S.P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that pursuant to the order dated 1.05.2007 involving ARBA No.4 of 2007 the order therein has been worked out by handing over of possession of the establishment to the respondent no.2 on 11.06.2007 and a consequential registered transferred deed has been undertaken on 20.07.2009, it appears, this appeal becomes infructuous.
Accordingly this Arbitration Appeal stands disposed of as infructuous.
…….…………………
(Biswanath Rath, J.)
Ayas
Appellant
Respondent no.1
Respondent no.2
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
