A finance company's revision petition concerning arbitration-related matters was dismissed for non-prosecution after counsel repeatedly failed to establish its maintainability under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and no party appeared when finally called.
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 ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRP No.11 of 2008
Magma Sharchi Finance Ltd. …. Petitioner None
-versus-
Khirod Kumar Panda …. Opposite Party
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
ORDER 20.06.2024
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Suchitra Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 20-Jun-2024 15:40:38
1 issue framed by the court
Was the civil revision petition maintainable with reference to Section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Magma Sharchi Finance Ltd.
Khirod Kumar Panda
Murahari Sri Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
