Disposed

Vijay Rajak v. Tata Motors Ltd. and Ors.

Patna HC2 Mar 2016CWJC/11875/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner defaulted on vehicle loan and challenged an ex-parte arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court allowed withdrawal with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal after seeking condonation of delay.

Vijay Rajak Vs Tata Motors Ltd. and Ors. — Patna HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11875 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== 1. Vijay Rajak Son Of Misri Rajak, Resident Of Village And P.O.- Rangra, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Tata Motors Limited, A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1913 Having Its Registered Office At 3, Bombay House, 24 Homi Modi Street Fort, Mumbai-400001 And Inter-Alia Officer At Building A, 2nd Floor, Lodha 1-Think Techno Campus, Near Voltas, Off. Pokharan Road-2, Thane (West), 400607 2. Maurya Motors Limited, Commercial Vehicle Dealer, Plot No. C-1, Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna- 800013 (Bihar) 3. Mr. Nitin Chadha, Sole Arbitrator, Prashant Apartment, Opp. I.I.T Main Gate, Shop No. 3, Adishankracharya Marg, Powai, Mumbai- 400076 (Maharashtra)

¶4

.... .... Respondent/s

¶5

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶6

4 02-03-2016 Heard.

¶7

The petitioner obtained loan for purchase of vehicle and defaulted in payment thereof. The matter was raised before the arbitrator by the respondents. Despite the notice the petitioner did not appear thereat. Proceeding ex-parte the learned arbitrator passed the award on 13th March, 2013 which is under challenge.

¶8

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under which the proceeding was taken up itself provides for a remedy for setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. Having appreciated the same, the counsel for the petitioner, sought permission of the Court to withdraw this application in order to

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.11875 of 2013 (4) dt.02-03-2016

¶10

2/2

¶11

approach the appropriate forum/authority/Court for redressal of the grievance after seeking condonation of delay. The writ application stands disposed of with the said

¶12

liberty. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶13

Shyam/-
U

Vijay Rajak v. Tata Motors Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Rajak v. Tata Motors Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulekha Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajneesh Kumar Priyadarshi Vs The State Of Bihar

Sulekha Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Raj Kishore Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar

Rajeev Kumar Mishra @ Rajeev Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar

Aneeta Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.