c . BR ^\^{' <» v i ^..</)/j ^' ••'...A^<s/.<.-"" ^..^g? ^^ ^ ••'^" ^'" ^ vs RE^POWD'ENTS: IW THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRiTPETrnoNNO.'2>B'77 OF 2005 PETrriONER^ --' M/s Airen Associates, a I:) artne r s h i p firra du 1y re g i s te re c1 under the relevant provisions ol the Indian Partnership Act;, 1932 having its head office at C-197, Vikaspuri, New Delhi and inter alia amongst other branches a branch office at 42/8, Motilal Nehru Nagar (East.),Bhi1ai District Durg. I. Bank of Baroda, a bodv Corporate, constituted uiide r the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ot Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at Mandvvi Baroda, State ol Gujarat and inter alia Zonal Office at Bank of Baroda, Bu i Id in g No. 1 6, S a n s <:i (1 Marg, Post Box No. 474, Nevv Delhi-1 1Q001. ^2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Central Office, 3, Walchand l-1irachand Marg, Ballard Pier Mumbai (Bombay)- 400 038 ^<3, The Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, regist.ered office, LIC Building Pandri, Raipur. ^' • /A/Wl IPETn'IpN UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 22^7 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. f' *mc^r a»^rq» ;IJ®ET<^ii«io<y, tp-al^<i<?, Ro|\1 y<< ^ ...t.lp..3.?.72^........ ^200 3TI^$T q^^P (^cl^el^) 3TT^^TWRrii<h PCTOT^^Tw+iicp ?mTWr^Tf^TOT^^T 24.8,2005 Shri B, P, Sharnia; coii] Heard on adniission, The petitioner has pr| Article 226/227 of the aggrieved by the order c^ passed by learned 1st Ac] whereby learned Additionall application filed by the the civil suit, Brief faets leading to| the petitiouer herein fil| respondents hereiu under of the Arbitration & Concil] was fixed for arguraents day neither the coiinsel fc^ petitioner was present iu disniissed in default. restoration of suit was file^ 17.1.2005 mentioning the^ Delhi in order to look after the petitiouer was busy ii| timie counsel for the petitio came to know that the suit Therefore, the application 15th & 16th were holidays, cp|<lIo<i1Tl HFTcyf^'f^St Ktut^ci^ ^3lf^T31T^5T |nsel for the petitioncr. ^ferred this writ petition under Constitution of India being |ated 9.2.2005 (Annexure P-7) [ditional District Judge, Durg Disfrict Judge has rejected the pet|itioner herein for restoration of filing of this petition are that ^d a civil sziit against the Bection 20 read with Section 8 tation Act, 1940. The said suit oti 14,1,2005, however, on that |r the petitioner herein nor the tl|ie court, therefore, the suit was T^iereafter, an application for {1 on behalf of the pctitioner on |ein that the petitioner was in jhis ailing uncle and counsel for some otlier court aud by the jner reached at aboiit 3 p.ni, he has been disinissed in default, |was filed on 17.1.2005, as the SP/FS/2005-20,000 1 XI-HC-78 ^ssf ^WM^, u>-al^i<i<»,Rrti<<i^ *tl*1CTI^<TTq> en^^T^rf^N? n'^n^n^^Tw^w lli 3TT^5T qa?p (yil^dts) ^200 ^Fcffw^rf^r an^^T -zA Counsel for the p\ suit was dismissed in appearing before the co| Court and even no cou| respondents, He furth^ wasting time, 15th & 1(| was nioved on 17,1,200 giving any opportunity evidence in support of and even notices were n' Having heard have perused the inipug: The iBipugned oj perverse, therefore, I a issuance of notice to t1 cause further delay iu this writ petition wit respoudents. The order impugi-j prim.a-facie perverse, ir the application ought t' the respondeuts and raised any objectiou an' the application & affid< then the petitioner oiig] evidence iu support of ] filed without any delay, <PI<l[w<n^ <1l<1wT^"(^^l KRl^l^ ^^^T3II^«T btitioner subinitted that when the |default coiinsel for the petitioner kirt below was busy in some other |iisel was present on behalf of tlie ;r submits that thereafter without )th being holidays, the application |5, but learned trial court withozit to the petitioner for adducing |the application rejected tlie same t>t issued to the respondents. leai|ned counsel for the .petitioner, I bed order, |*der prima-facie appears to be |m of the considered opinion that |ie respondents herein is going to tjhe matter, therefore I ani deciding bout issxiance of notice to the |ed passed by the trial court is the first iustance, the notice on b have been issued to<connsel for Ijiad the counsel for respondents ft the Court was not satisfied with |ivit in support of the appiication |it to have been allowed to adduce hjis application. The application was as 15th & 16h being holidays the ^TDq^l'qiOO, tPTilK-l<l<»,RlOI<<iy< \k nm^i m^n^ OT^^T^rf^lfcp ^H^^T^HJch 3TT^5T q^sp (ijclijel^;) ^200 B^TTW^rfipf 3TT^^T application was moved inipugned order is allo^ an injustice to the pet allowed, order impugiK directed to first issue respondents and if res] the petitioner's applical petitioner to adduce evi and thereafter, decide 1 law, It is made clear th by this order then they Court for modification o With the directio: petition stands disposec Consequently, I,A. of. " -~ . 1 Certified copy as cpi<4lo<nvt 4ii+ioT^'fe^£l^f^i^<i'< ^3<Ri4l3T[^$T on 17.1.2005, therefore, if the red to exist then the same will be Itioner, As siich, the. petition is id is quashed and trial court is notice on the application to the )ondents disputed tfae coutents of ion then allow tlie cozuisel for the lence in supporf of the application he application in accordance with at if the respondents feel aggrieved will be at liberty to approach this f the order. 1 and observation aforesaid, the of. No.7259/05 also stands disposed p|er rules. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 8^8/2005-20,000 '<