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

2013 Supreme(All) 1209

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)
AMIT MOHAN MITTAL – Appellant
Versus
ATUL KUMAR GUPTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Siddharth for the Petitioner; C.S.C. and Nipun Singh for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Siddharth, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Nipun Singh for the respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of District Judge, Meerut dated 29.5.2012, rejecting the Application (37-C/2) of the petitioner for summoning the persons for cross-examination, whose affidavits have been filed by respondent-1 in support of his objection, in Arbitration Case No. 32 of 2010, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation, Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. Atul Kumar Gupta and Smt. Seema Gupta (respondents-1 and 2) are owners of the building, bearing Cantonment No. 182-A, Dayanand Path, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt. The said building was let out to Amit Mohan Bansal (the petitioner) through the rent deed dated 10.4.2007 for a period of 11 months, on the monthly rent of Rs. 1,00,000/- with right to renewal for another nine times for the period of 11 months each. At the time of execution of the rent deed, Rs. 3,50,000/- was given to the lessors by way of refundable security. In this rent deed, Mukesh Kumar Garg (respondent-3), who is brother of Smt. Seema Gup











































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