The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition which challenged the trial court's rejection of an application for appointment of a retired Chief Engineer to settle claims, holding the application was effectively for mediation/arbitration not covered under Order 26 CPC.
No relief granted; petition dismissed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Civil Revision Petition No.1360 of 2017
ORDER:
The revision arises out of an order passed by the trial Court dismissing an application under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
VRS, J CRP.No.1360 of 2017
2
dismissed. It will be open to the petitioner to seek the aid of the Court to invoke Section 89 CPC, if both parties are willing to take recourse to one of the methods of Alternate Dispute Resolutions stipulated therein.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
Date: 05-06-2017
Ksn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order appointing a retired Chief Engineer to settle claims was correctly rejected as not being an application for appointment of a Commissioner under Order 26 CPC.
Whether the petitioner's application was essentially for a mediator or arbitrator rather than a scientific investigation commission.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondents
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
