✦ Chhattisgarh High Court · 18 Nov 2005

Bilaspur High Court · 2005

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

MR. BAJRANG LOHIA aged 59 years, Son of Shri R.K. Lohia, resident of Sadar Bazar, ^y Bilaspur(C.G.) :^< 'y1" ./-^<^'' ^•\^ ^y>/ \^y •l&'* -»*' MR. NATHMAL SHARMA, Named Sole Abitrator, Evening Times. Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) .&<<•— ^v- MEMORANDUM OF BftS^-APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37(2)(b) OFTHE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT.

1996. AGAINSTTHE EXPARTE ORDER OF INJUCTION DATED 13^10.2003. PASSED BYTHE RESPONDENT N0. 2 AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR IN THE PURPORTED EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS UNDER SECTION 17 OFTHE SAID ACT. •^' Aggreived by the exparte order of injunction dated 13.10.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 2 as the Sole Arbitrator in the purported exercise of his powers under Section -T7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter called the Act) in the matter of alleged arbitral disputes between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1, u ^"- :wi,;?':ll'>(:'.^'.!^ isau.;;: ¥;;) --0. ..I iSSSS^^M^ ^®i:i%aiBiBfiSK118U^.;l^^ 8%iSliMISSBBSIff^^fe®ll^^^ '®%%SJ15BS8SS8S%ifei'l^tS ;,^^|||»»gggg||^g|s^^B;^^^^ ,;g:^l::^^giS.II^;Miiiatg%in% $ t Si%®i%S^^^1';'. WSffl<SKS' ¥:S'S'SsS"WQ ::-v? SIBIKHSii ifi.3i?liBii;!i :^^/?^^^^.\CTl::^,,^.1.^:..;v;':^^^|^^^^^^..;:ill';^ ^^KS.'^^.^; KKaff'S fflSi^iiiAilSSSig|Bai|^|.^^^^^ l^C^iBaK?iKt"'lt^iilfr^B ffBIIIBi^BiS.liSi.'SililBSi .r':''lff'"£%;glB:1';l'1^;£;'^<f,f:3-'' illillilililEilli^^^ ii^?'^SIIisIiSSMKB.!'^.:^Kl.'^^ il^llK1-^;;:'^ ffi^'^®^l:^is/.'ffiiSiJiilBwj;:-;;:^1'^ issisisii iiSiiSSiSSiSSS'. iiiiiiiiiiiiiit ^iW'e^^ • ^; ;i;s;j:%s»c;s,^ •.^i':si^ifr-wl^5iaiii ::S^ywSf^''^ '^^^K ,n1,^,^:.;% :li-^.i.?^ ^^csgigig^ i'iB'^::M :M H g@;- ''v<n/ !1; J •^':-.-•- -•« "^^!'~ -r\/ -^ ,^:^ 1-AS~ m '.'M' ^ •r.;!'^^^ :./....;^';".^ BABZSBAUqS -/PS "S'A |BS3[B.t;|[3d|sSujSiEQ;3f^[email protected].^':^j;..';.: Sl: g01i)@i380(^^ ^g|BB^i|(BaaaB§3C[;(:^^S?liEEpS[03aB'i'(aie. nEbj :.X.,.i ^3'pi:^;;^s;s]E^a|^i^p3i^n3a[n;:3ign^ ^iiA?:B;"-*:a3-."fiaW'S%?^"K'";''K;t:^ .' ^•a^;SiS 9SSB^p.tcK:0ief:''esK ;.a;CgiB^3E(J3BS ;1|IgEtaSLn^.;prB8tff<^;3IEB^Tp;I^^^-.:.^ gK^|s3a^;'^li^3|j^Qe^3ej'q ^atn3sfR' ,^Ea:B.l.i.£Bia||)®3;II(§ai^'3[EgElt^^,S^ ^|@)?-S3(SCB(K|^:^p%i:J|J^?:UC^ B?t(:(IM^/p3!SStIHSI^.;^^01\atq)BTl^^^i ^ijgaxgco.^ ^i^^i^^,^e^;sn^^:^Q]iq.oTpsunt' fWS'^& •^^^^XB3S^:.a3SlI^ gg);[^n£Etins;;^^flfl^^3 s.W^,'.^.." ^v^^3'^ 'jo:ii&i^oR!;?^:J3:EtJro^ES^^ gsSffi |s||g^)giagE)gig|'F]Effi|||JB|s|mfi3^^0^ ; saai^^wfes(ic^s!t3sy33^E[^!y^sss^ '?BN>33sta SEistSBB^1^3l3S;13MK'';lli :nF'3i|g|ia|rii3£l^^i^u®{][^S&-;3flE(|| fSKWMS^S^(v. ^^Sx' Sw . 1^Ji(0B^8s|;SiffasslaGESI:l:OSI1^ |jggiS|^p^j^wB^siattaurafe£@:GB[.,git>? ^aiiiBttSiEEKKigo^aMiasqB^ Ko ..[ii3A.taS^;~CI3Sq.',SBll^'}S>¥,y:::3I[t;3Q" |E)^'^ 3JlMAoB:';jtjS('p3flIIII^>V ^'-i''':,';^ ; .f''""^' •'•":- ;'.^^;x iafff^^^fut^^ffS/if^a&t^ w^,^yu3{nip<Isaii- sa • woiya.tflq.w ^^cn^.sW^.ssfSig-K roi(pau3j'afaqr;g]^»l|^B^i 'w^'ifasyat^i.ia^^fffpyssilff sSlfS -a 'i^iaps^aOMSfps^i^^^^afffJS^siffi^faf ^^•.^-,^..' L?';'.};..".. l-:'-1''-:''' "d ff3lSa^xS3W3tCtW:03, ^^^•"yaaSsu.-sivb 'y ••.; ^i?My>^».sj.^»^a*lrii.g»u]M^ ii^UKMl&jte;.^.: ?:::- •' - 'oo?-:^^...,.4.^.^.s^.4:%^^i-t' ^.®^iBeiN^;;;il^l^l^^;;%^^^^^^ •'^••^. 'aiiSi'Naa'wBiB.llw tnp.. 'm rt; ^ajK.'tfcjtftB '..life^IK ZS-3H-IX

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 37(2)(b).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Chhattisgarh High Court, on 18 Nov 2005.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Chhattisgarh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments