Writ petition challenging an arbitration notice was permitted to be withdrawn; the petitioner was allowed to make a representation to the bank to settle the matter amicably.
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
W.P.(C) No.24310 of 2023
M/s. Nilakantha Enterprises, Dhenkanal
…. Petitioner
Mr. A. Patnaik, Advocate
-versus-
M/s IndusInd Bank Ltd., Chennai …. Opposite Parties & another
Mr. R. Panigrahi, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Order No. 06.
ORDER
18.01.2024
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Learned Counsel for the parties are present.
Page 1 of 2
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Banita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Jan-2024 19:06:35
Page 2 of 2
M/s. Nilakantha Enterprises, Dhenkanal
M/s IndusInd Bank Ltd., Chennai
Sanjay Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
