Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Kishan Kumar Mahendra Kumar v. M/S Aardee Syntax Pvt. Ltd. - CIVIL REVISION No. - 454 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17871 (15 November 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This Civil Revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras.

An arbitration case was filed by the M/s. Aardee Syntax Pvt. Ltd. before Hindustan Chamber of

Commerce, Mumbai which was registered as Case No. A/91/03-04. The arbitrator passed an award on 17.2.2004 awarding Rs. 12.85 lacs. The plaintiff-opposite-party moved an application before the Bombay High Court on 6.7.2004 for transfer of the decree to Hathras Court. The application was allowed. An application was thereafter moved by the opposite-party before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras for execution of the award. On 23.5.2006 the revisionist filed objections under Section 47 CPC. The objections were rejected by the Court by the order dated 19.9.2007.

I have heard Sri Vishal Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite-party.

The objections have been rejected by the Executing Court holding that it cannot go behind the decree. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has also placed before the Court the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 516 of 2006 wherein the arbitration petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected. The Court had rejected the contention advanced by the revisionist that no notice had been received from the arbitrator. The same grounds were sought to be raised before the Executing Court and, therefore, the Executing Court had rightly observed that it cannot go behind the decree. The Executing Court has rejected the contention of the judgment-debtor regarding certain payments having been made by giving cogent reasons. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order dated 19.9.2007.

The Civil Revision is, accordingly, rejected.

Dt/- 15.11.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.