Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2495 (CHH)

CHHATTISGARH TEXT BOOK CORPORATION v. M/S CHHATTISGARH PACKAGERS PVT LTD.

WA/80/2025 · 2025-02-04

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:6183-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 80 of 2025 Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation, Having Office At Office Complex, Block B, Sector- 24, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet As M/s Chhattisgarh Pathya Pustak Nigam Haribhumi Parisar Dhamtari Road Tikrapara Raipur 492001 Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus M/s Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt Ltd. Through Shyam Lal Gupta S/o Ganesh Prasad Gupta Aged About 85 Years 4/1 Nehru Nagar West Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjit Tiwari and Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Arjit Tiwari and Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.02.04 18:24:29 +0530 2 the appellant. Also heard Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for respondent. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(227) (M/s Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Chhattisgarh Pathya Pustak Nigam) whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein. 3. The present appeal is stated to be not maintainable in view of the Rules of the Court as the order passed by the learned Writ Court is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against which writ is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant states that learned Single Judge has exercised the power under Section 226 and quashed the order by which the delay was condoned by the Arbitral Tribunal. 5. As such, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant take recourse to law before the learned Single Judge. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet