Paras Nath Singh v. The Union Of India
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
Provisions considered
Judgment
Md. Naseem Ahmad Khan, S/o Late Md. Ayub Khan, resident of Village- Karari, P.S.- Durgawati, District- Kaimur.
Ajay Kumar Singh, S/o Lakhandeo Singh, resident of Village- Amarpura East, P.S.- Jakhim, District- Aurangabad.
Dudheshwar Singh, S/o Mundrika Singh, resident of Village- Chiralia, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Aurangabad. Versus ... ... Petitioner/s
The Union Of India through the Secretary, Railway Department, Delhi. Railway Board through its Chairman, Delhi. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. The Senior Division Commercial Manager, East Central Railway. The Divisional Railway Manager Commercial, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai. The Chief Traffic Inspector DOS, Mughalsarai Division, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Garuda, P.O.- Sanjhauli, P.S. Bikramganj, District- Rohtas. Sanjay Paswan, resident of Village- Ankorhi, P.O.- Ankorhi, P.S.- Khera NTPC, District- Aurangabad Bihar. Sri Ankit Kumar, resident of Village- Amartha Tola, P.O.- Gachhai, P.S.- Karkatta, District- Rohtas.
Sri Vikash Kumar, resident of Village- Dandal, P.S. Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : : : : Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Dhandev Kumar, Advocate Mr.Anshay Bahadur Mathur, CGC For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 4 12-08-2025
The Writ petition is filed for quashing the award dated 24.08.2018 passed by Dy. Chief Patna High Court CWJC No.18525 of 2018(4) dt.12-08-2025 Engineer-cum-Arbitration Tribunal, Sole Arbitrator, Mughalsarai.
2. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act gives power to challenge the award before the District Judge.
3. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the petitioner intends to withdraw the Writ petition with a liberty to challenge the same before the District Judge.
Permission is accorded.
5. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same before the District Judge.
However, the Writ petition is filed in the year 2018 itself, therefore, the District Court shall liberally construe the limitation aspect. amitkr/- U (G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.