Full Text
F.A.O. (OS) NO.298 of 2009 with CM Nos.9795-96/2009
Date of Decision: 20th July, 2009 PRAKASH SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Neeraj Atri and Ms. Vineeta Atri, Advocates.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of the local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? [NO]
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? [NO]
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? [NO] JUDGMENT (ORAL) MUKUL MUDGAL, J.
1. Notice.
2. Mr. Atri, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
3. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.
4. This appeal challenges the impugned order dated 12th May, 2009 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the OMP preferred by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for staying of the order dated 22nd February, 2009 of the respondent. We see no reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge’s order dated 12th May, 2009 to the extent it holds that a court cannot restore a contract which has already been terminated. Indeed 2009:DHC:2783-DB the appellant’s counsel did not seriously challenge this finding. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed on the fact that the order of black listing is also subsisting against the appellant and was passed contrary to the principles of natural justice. In our view, the last paragraph of the learned Single Judge’s order dated 12th May, 2009 protects the appellant’s rights which reads as follows:- “ It is made clear that this order would not come in the way of petitioner as and when petitioner challenges the order of blacklisting.”
5. Considering the fact that sufficient protection against the blacklisting had already been granted to the appellant and since learned counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file such an application raising pleas against his blacklisting, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. CM Nos.9795-96/2009 in F.A.O. (OS) NO.298 of 2009
6. Since the appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn, these applications have become infructuous and the same stand disposed of as having become infructuous.
MUKUL MUDGAL [JUDGE] NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL [JUDGE] JULY 20, 2009 sb