Kashinath Choubey v. M/S Indusind Bank Limited And ANR

Patna High Court CWJC No.5364 of 2017 dt.25-01-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5364 of 2017 =========================================================== Kashinath Choubey, Son of Late Sitaram Choubey, at Mansa Pandey Bagh, Police Station- Ara, Jharkhand, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. M/s Indusind Bank Limited, Represented by its Authorized representative Mr. T.S. Rajagopal, Deputy Manager-Legal and having its Registered Office at New No. 34, Old Nos. 115 & 116, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai- 600017.

2. Mr. D. Saravanan, Arbitrator, Orient Chambers, No. 90 (Old No. 73), 4th Floor, Armenian Street, Chennai - 600001.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, Mr. Archana Sinha, Advocates =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-01-2018 This matter has been listed for hearing of I.A. No. 53 of 2018 which has been filed with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to release the Bolero SLX 2WD 7STR BS IV vehicle having registration No. BR03P6355 which has been seized by the respondent-bank on 11.12.2017. With the consent of the parties however, the main writ petition itself is taken up for consideration and disposal.

2. The main writ petition has been filed for quashing the interim order dated 09.11.2016 and further order dated 07.12.2016 and for stay against passing award by the learned Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. At the outset, this Court takes note that the present writ petition

Patna High Court CWJC No.5364 of 2017 dt.25-01-2018 has been filed on 30.03.2017, whereas the final award has already been passed much prior thereto on 24.12.2016 itself (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit).

4. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition itself is misconceived and stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 25.01.2018 Transmission Date NA