Disposed

Sangram Keshari Mishra v. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., Chennai

Orissa HC5 Jan 2024WP(C)/40675/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa, in a writ petition challenging an ex-parte arbitral award, observed that the petitioner failed to make specific averments regarding non-communication of the award under Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allowing withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition with better particulars.

Sangram Keshari Mishra Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and… — Arbitration | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.40675 of 2023

¶3

Sangram Keshari Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. D. Pattnaik, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

M/s Cholamandalam Investment & …. Opposite Parties Finance Company Ltd., BBSR & ors.

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶7

Order No. 01.

¶8

ORDER 05.01.2024 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Mr. D. Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner appears through virtual mode and submits, the present writ petition has been preferred challenging the ex-parte award passed by the Arbitrator as at Annexure-1.

¶9

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits, his client was never noticed by the Arbitrator before passing the exparte Award. the signed copy of the impugned award was never communicated to his client in terms of sub Section-5 in Section-31 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for which his client was debarred to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in terms of Sction-34 of the Act, 1996 in time. Rather, his client got a copy of the said award along with the notice received in the Execution Case from the Commercial Court and was being compelled to approach this Court in form of present writ petition,

¶10

Page 1 of 2

¶11

having no alternative remedy.

¶12

In view of such submission, a query being made as to specific averment made to the said effect in the writ petition as to noncommunication of award in terms of sub Section-5 in Section-31 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, learned Counsel for the Petitioner fails to satisfy this Court as to making specific averment and allegation to the said effect in the writ petition.

¶13

However, Mr. Pattnaik prays to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition with better particulars.

¶14

In view of such submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶15

Banita

¶16

(S. K. MISHRA)

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 08-Jan-2024 11:07:25

¶20

Page 2 of 2

Sangram Keshari Mishra v. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram Keshari Mishra v. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indra Tamba Vs Special Land Acquisition Zone Officer,Lower Indra Irrigation Project,Nuapada

Union of India Vs Annapurna Pradhan

Land Acquisition Officer,Kalahandi Vs Sujit Ku.Sahoo

Union of India Vs Alekh Behera

Kasturi Dash Vs the Sr.Divisional Manager,the National Insurance Co.Ltd.

O.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Dhaneswar Say