Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19346 (CHH)

J.B. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, v. UNION OF INDIA

MCC/434/2025 · 2025-05-02

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:20293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 434 of 2025 J.B. Construction Company, Through Its Partner Jashpalsethi S/o Shri Late G.S. Sethi Aged About 65 Years OfÏce At Hotel Jay Bee Inn Telephone Exchange Road Police Station Taarbahar Tehisl and District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union of India Ministry Of Railway Through The Principal Chief Commercial Manager All Zonal Railway, New Delhi 2. The South Eastern Central Railway Through The General Manager 5th Floor C- Block Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager South East Central Railway Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Dy Chief Engineer South Eastern Central Railway Chindwara (M.P.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.05.2025 1. Heard Ms. Saumya Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents/UOI. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.05.03 10:41:27 +0530 2 2. The present MCC has been filed by the petitioner for recalling of the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by this Court in ARBR No. 32/2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present application has been moved by the petitioner for recalling of the Court’s order dated 17.12.2024 by which Arbitration Case No. 32/2024 has been allowed by this Court as in the array of cause title addresses of respondents No. 3 and 4 have wrongly been mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner in the application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and it is stated that because of which, the petitioner could not proceed with the arbitration proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/UOI has no objection for the same. 5. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by this Court in ARBR No. 32/2024, is hereby recalled and ARBR No. 32/2024 is restored to its original number. 6. Registry is directed to list ARBR No. 32/2024 for hearing in accordance with law. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti