Jamuna Prasad v. The Union of India
Case at a glance
- Bench
- CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, MADHURESH PRASAD
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 s. 33
Judgment
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s
Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Dr. K.N.Singh (ASG) Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate (Railways) : : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) 3 27-01-2022 This application has been taken up for online hearing through video conference because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. This writ petition filed on 19.10.2020 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which has been registered on Patna High Court CWJC No.3634 of 2021(3) dt.27-01-2022
02.02.2021. The petitioner is seeking following direction:- “That the petitioner craves indulgence of this Honb'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to dispose of the petition dated
17.07.2017, filed on behalf of the petitioner vide letter No. JP/LC Gates/Boom Locking/47/DOS in Arbitration Award for differences arose out of C.A. No.MGS/BT/Agrt/1158Sr. DEN-1/2009-10 dated
10.02.2010 as contained in Annexure-3 and Annexure-2 respectively within stipulated period.” The representation which the petitioner wants to be disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal under the direction of this Court in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been brought on record by way of Annexure-3 to the writ application. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that by the said representation dated 17.07.2017, the petitioner had sought for simple correction of typographical errors and the said representation was, in fact, a petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He has also submitted that subsequent to filing of the said representation dated 17.07.2017, further representations were also filed before the Arbitral Tribunal with the same prayer. Patna High Court CWJC No.3634 of 2021(3) dt.27-01-2022 There does not appear to be any pleading that the petitioner has taken recourse to Section 34 of the Act by putting to challenge the said award, which he could have availed. In our view, this writ application seeking direction to the Arbitral Tribunal to entertain the said representation dated
17.07.2017 is wholly misconceived. In any event, the said representation dated 17.07.2017, cannot be treated to be a petition seeking correction/rectification of clerical errors. In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this application is completely misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) K.K.RAO/- U
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.