Chankya Technos Pvt. Ltd v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1625 of 2012 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20282 of 2011 ====================================================== Chankya Technos Private Limited Through Its Director Ravi Shankar Pathak Son Of Late Harishankar Pathak Having Registered Office At Rajgadh House, Harihar Prasad Dubey Marg, Bettiah Hatta, Gorakhpur (U.P.) And Having Administrative Office At Shivkripa House No. 23, Road No. O, Shivpuri, Patna Petitioner....Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna
2. The Engineer-In-Chief, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna
3. The Chief Engineer, North Wing Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna
4. The Superintending Engineer, Bhawan Anchal, Motihari East Champaran
5. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Bettiah, West Champaran
6. The Assistant Engineer, Building Sub-Division, Bagaha, West Champaran
7. The Managing Director, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Bihar, Patna
8. Principal Secretary, Tourism Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Parth Sharthi, SC10 For the Respondent No.7 : Mr. P.K. Jaipuriyar, Advocate Mr. Ashuman Jaipuriyar, Advocate.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA) 14-07-2015 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that during pendency of this appeal the period during which the contract was to be executed as per the agreement has expired and
Patna High Court LPA No.1625 of 2012 (2) dt.14-07-2015 2/2 as such the appeal has become infructuous and therefore it is prayed that the matter may be disposed of with liberty to the appellant to invoke the remedy of arbitration in accordance with law and the time spent during pendency of this appeal may not come in the way of the appellant in invoking the arbitration jurisdiction in accordance with law.
2. Accordingly, the matter is disposed of having become infructuous with the aforesaid liberty. (V.N. Sinha, J) (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) U Abhay/-