N N NAGRATH Vs. SUSHIL NAGRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned Counsel of either parties on the pros and cons of the dispute, it transpires that a controversy was referred to the sole arbitrator Mr. Justice Krishna Kumar (a retired High Court Judge) for the settlement. In the said arbitration case no. 1/2007, an award was rendered on 21.10.2008, whereagainst objections were moved by Sushil Nagrath (the respondent herein) under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. These objections were decided by the learned District Judge on 22.10.2011 and the award was partially modified.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved with such modification, Mr. N.N. Nagrath (the appellant herein) filed a writ petition on 22.2.2012 i.e. after 122 days of the judgment of learned District Judge. The counter -objections, rejoinder affidavit, etc. were filed by both the parties. However, the writ petition could not be adjudicated for some reason or the other and mainly for the reason that it was got adjourned by the writ petitioner on several dates and ultimately he permitted the Court to dismiss the same in nonprosecution on 8.3.2012.

(3.) AFTER 28 days of such dismissal, the restoration application was moved which again could not be adjudicated soon. However, the writ petition was ultimately 2 restored on 17.12.2012. On urgency application moved by Sushil Nagrath, the petition came up for hearing. Again the case was adjourned and ultimately when the Writ Court expressed the view that instead of filing the writ, appeal should have been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file the appeal as aforestated.