M/S. Maa Kali Civcon Corporation Pvt. Ltd v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2946 of 2017 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19468 of 2014 =========================================================== M/s Maa Kali Civcon Corporation Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 103, Block - B, Jagmano Shree Garden, Vedh Nagar, Rukanpura, Bailey Road, Patna through its Managing Director, Dhananjay Kumar Yadav, Son of Shri Ramchandra Prasad Yadav, Resident of A-6/304, Jalalpur City Ramjaypal Path, Bailey Road, P.S. Rupaspur Town and District Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India, Ministry of Railways, having its Office at Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The General Manager, East Central Railways, having its Office at Hajipur, District Vaishali.

3. The Chief Administrative Officer (Con.)/North, East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna.

4. The Chief Engineer, (Con)/North, East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna.

5. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Con.)/II, East Central Railway, Samastipur. .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Mr. Yash Mathur, Mr. Ankit Katriar, Advocates =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The present petition has been filed for modification of the judgment dated 06.04.2016 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 19468 of 2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the arbitration proceeding, learned Arbitrator has been

Patna High Court MJC No.2946 of 2017 dt.18-10-2017 2/2 appointed as Chairman Lokayukt, Bihar and the arbitration proceeding has stopped.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any case for modification of the judgment of this Court as the petitioner has alternative remedy under the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 itself in respect of the grievance of the nature stated in the petition.

5. The petition accordingly stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 19.10.2017 Transmission Date N.A.