SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Cal) 101

DILIP KUMAR SETH, RAJENDRA NATH SINHA
AMBIKA ENTERPRISES – Appellant
Versus
TRISHNA BOSE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mainak Bose, RAKESH KUMAR SINGH, SUMAN DEV

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THE deficit Court fee has since been filed on 7th March, 2003 under filing No.-A-3017 of 2003 the defect is removed. The appeal is in order.

( 2 ) AN application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) was filed by the appellant. In the said proceedings, an appointment of Receiver was obtained. The respondent filed an application for vacating the order. Ultimately, however, the proceeding under Section 9 of the 1996 Act was dismissed for non-prosecution resulting into the discharge of the Receiver. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking modification of the order of dismissal of the proceedings for non-prosecution discharging of the Receiver. It was sought to be contended that the nature of the application was that of an application for review. But this contention was negatived. The application was found to be one under Section 152 CPC. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge had rejected the application. Against this order, the present appeal has since been filed.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant insisted that this application, though described as one u



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top