56 1 Civil Revision No249 of 2010 lOSMI 1J 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No249 of 2010 08M1 1 0 Date of Decision2 April 20110 1 0 I C40 44 I SmtnIndu Bala and another Oetitioners Z Versus 2 MlSe tr IndusInd Bank Limited I z CORAMl HONBLE MR JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1 Whether Reportersof iocal papers maY be allowed to see ri0 the judgment7 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not 3 Whether Z the judgmentshould be reportedItl the Digest7 Presentl Mr RS Mamii Advocate for the appeliants 4 MOHINDER PAL J The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 1132010 passed by the District Judge Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhn whereby warrants of attachment Itl respect of the property of the Debtors have been ordered to be issued After hearin9the Iearned counsel for the petitioners and CJOing through the records of the case I do not see any reason which may warrant interference in the impugned order passed by Parkash Om 2013.01.15 14: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 2 Civil Revision No249 of 2010 l08M1 1 the iearned District Judge in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of thisCourt The execution proceedingshad been initiated against the petitioners to recover the amount as awarded by the Arbitrator who had in itiated proceedings as per terms of the agreement executed between the petitioners and the Bank The petitionfiled by the 1 petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 0 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act for setting Aside the C0 arbitral award had alreadybeen dismissed by the Iearned District Judge when warrants of attachment of the propertyof the petitioners in 1 order to recover the decretal amount had been issued by the District Z Judge Vide my separate judgmentof even date the appealpreferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the iearned District r Judgedismissingthe petition of the petitioners under Section 34 of I the Act has been dismissed by this Courta The objectionpetition in the Z execution proceedingshad been filed by the petitioners taking somewhat 00 similar grounds as were taken by them Itl the petition under Section V Z 34 of the Act Under the circumstances the Iearned District Judgewas Oa quite justied in passing the impugnedorder Dismissed 9 Datedl April 2011 PALI JUDGE 1 9 Parkash Om 2013.01.15 14: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document