Shri Mahesh Puri v. The Executive Engineer, Padhar Division, HPPWD Padhar, District Mandi
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 02 Mar 2012
- Bench
- V K SHARMA
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The petition, so also pending OMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 2nd March, 2012 (virender)
Judgment
Shri Mahesh Puri son of late Shri L.C. Puri, resident of Sukhdham, Dhingra Estate, Boileauganj, Shimla-5. .....Petitioner. Versus 1 The State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (PW) to the Government of HP, HP Secretariat, Shimla-2.
The Executive Engineer, Padhar Division, HPPWD Padhar, District Mandi, .....Respondents. Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ____________________________________________________ Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. For the petitioner: Monika Shukla, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Reply stands filed.
2. Heard. It is stated by Mr. J.S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that before filing of the present petition the petitioner had approached the respondents for settlement of his claim as involved in the present petition. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 HPPWD, Mandi Zone, had appointed Mr. S.S. Kalra, Engineer in Chief (Retd.) as Adjudicator to settle the claim. Consequently, the Adjudicator has passed an award of Rs. 1.96 crore in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner is no more interested in prosecuting the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as not pressed.
The petition, so also pending OMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 2nd March, 2012 (virender)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 9.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 02 Mar 2012. The bench was V K SHARMA.
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.