← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/2057/2018disposed off

Chandrabhusan Singh Banjare v. M/S Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Limited

2018-07-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2057 of 2018

1. Chandrabhusan Singh Banjare S/o Ravi Singh Banjare Aged About 49 Years, R/o H.N.298, Village Bhatapara, Gurunanakward, District Baloda Bazar, Near Tehka Road, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh-493118

2. Shyam Bhushan Banjare S/o Ravi Singh Banjare, R/o H.No.41, Village Purgaon, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar, Near Tauldish, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh-493338 ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. M/s Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Limited Rep. By Its Authorized Signatory Dare House Complex, Parry House 2nd Floor No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys Chennai-600001,

2. In Charge Officer Of Branch Office Of M/s Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Limited Branch Office Shop No. 506-509, 5th Floor National Corporate Park, G.E.Road, Raipur, Through Authorized Officer Pratik Barwad, Aged About 33 Years.

3. Shiv Shakti Tractor SH-09, Infront Of Sandhya Fuels, Raipur Road, Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. V. R. Koshaley, Advocate.

For Respondents / State :

Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. A. G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 26/07/18 1.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition against the award dated 15.07.2017 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, 'Act of 1996'). 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the impugned award is unsustainable and bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 3.

Learned State counsel submits that petitioners have an alternative remedy to file an application under Section 34(2) of the Act of 1996 for setting aside the award.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

Be that as it may, since the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy to file an application under Section 34(2) of the Act of 1996, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, the petitioners are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and also to file an application for stay in the said proceedings. 6.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka