This court dismissed a writ petition for want of prosecution. Despite a 2006 order directing the petitioner to produce a complete contract to ascertain an arbitration clause, the petitioner failed to comply even after six years.
Petition dismissed for want of prosecution.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.12733 of 2006 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 21, 2012
Chadha Motors, Ghee Mandi, Amritsar.
....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Aandeshwar Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
On August 18, 2006, this Court while adjourning the case sine die had noted that learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to place on record the complete contract so as to ascertain whether there was any Clause for Arbitration in case of any dispute. The writ petition was ordered to be listed after the needful was done.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
September 21, 2012 Sukhpreet
(G. S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to failure to produce the contract on record.
Chadha Motors
Union of India
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
G. S. SANDHAWALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
