← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCC/305/2018allowed

M/S Brijesh Agrawal v. South East Central Railway (Secr)

2018-04-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No. 305 of 2018 M/s Brijesh Agrawal, Sharda Sadan, Vinoba Nagar, Behind Gayatri Mandir, Talapara Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) through its Power of Attorney Holder Shri Shailesh Agrawal, S/o Shri Madan Lal Agrawal, Aged about 48 years. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. South East Central Railway (SECR) through its General Manager, GM/ SECR's Office Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. General Manager (Arbitration), South East Central Railway, GM Annex Building, 5th Floor, Bilaspur (C.G.)

3. Divisional Railway Manager, Bilaspur Division, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.)

4. Sr. Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Titli Chowk, Railway Settlement Area, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.)

5. Divisional Engineer (Spl/Works), in the office of Sr. Divisional Engineer (Coordination), Titli Chowk, Railway Settlement Area, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Harsh wardhan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 16/04/18 1.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that in the order passed by this Court on 23.02.2018 in Arbitration Application No. 87 of 2017, due to typographical error in the order, the name and details of the work under the Agreement dated 04.07.2013 has been mentioned as 'Agreement dated 20.09.2011 for undertaking the work of provision of limited height subway near level crossing No. 388 at Km. 771/23-25 of Raipur Division' instead of 'Agreement dated 04.07.2013 for construction of LHS by Pushing Method in Connection with Closing of Level Crossing No. AB-16 at Km. 973/23-

30 between BATL to BJRI under the jurisdiction of ADEN/MDGR.' 2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.

Accordingly, order dated 23.02.2018 is modified and name and details of the work agreement are corrected as stated hereinabove. 4.

The M.C.C. is disposed of accordingly. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka