Mahesh Lal v. Induslnd Bank Ltd & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Oct 2009
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above, this revision petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ....Respondents Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 30.04.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge (Ad hoc), Jalandhar vide which an ex parte order of resumption of the Bus in question has been granted against the petitioner on an application filed by the respondents under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act"). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the application filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Act has not been finally disposed of by the trial court so far and the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, the present revision petition is disposed of directing the trial court to decide the same within a time bound frame. He further submitted that the trial court be directed to take into consideration that the petitioner had deposited Rs.50,000/- in pursuance to order dated 28.7.2009 passed by this Court while deciding the aforesaid application. CR No.4192 of 2009 -2- Counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection to the aforementioned prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court that it shall decide the application filed by the respondent – Bank under Section 9 of the Act expeditiously preferably by 31.01.2010. Needless to say the trial court shall take note of the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of order dated July 28, 2009 passed by this Court while deciding the application.
13.10.2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, this revision petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 13 Oct 2009. The bench was AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
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.