✦ Madras High Court

George Abraham v. K.Abubacker

Case at a glance

Outcome

Withdrawn

Recording the said submission and the endorsement made, theseappeals are dismissed as withdrawn

Provisions considered

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 09.12.2009CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.Nos.2463, 2464, 2465 and 2466 of 2008andM.P.Nos.1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2008George Abraham ... Appellant in all C.M.As -vs-K.Abubacker ... Respondent in all C.M.AsAppeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act 1996, against the common Order passed by the LearnedArbitrator (appointed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in O.P.No.390 of2007), in I.A.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of 2008 and dated 19.07.2008, in theArbitration Proceedings at Chennai. For Appellant : Mrs.P.B.Rohini for M/s.Rank AssociatesFor Respondent : No appearanceJ U D G E M E N TToday, when the matters are taken up for hearing the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant sought the permission of thisCourt to withdraw these appeals as settled out of Court and to thateffect she has also made an endorsement. 2.Recording the said submission and the endorsement made, theseappeals are dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are also closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrarkrk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.2. The Hon'ble Mr.R.G.Ramaiah, Sole Arbitrator, (Retired District & Sessions Judge) No.9, XV Cross Street, Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020.+ 1 cc to M/s. Rank Associates, SR No.67270+ 1 cc to M/s. N.Premkumar, Advocate, SR 67269 C.M.A.Nos.2463, 2464, 2465 and 2466 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2008AKR (CO)RH (21.12.09)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the said submission and the endorsement made, theseappeals are dismissed as withdrawn

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 — s. 37.

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 Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments