9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al challenges the judgment dated 13 March 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge declined to review its order dated 15 December 1999. 2. The order dated 15 December 1999 reads as follows: "15.12.1999 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Anand with Ms. Kajal Chandra for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Malhotra for the respondent. S. No. 1836 A/98 Ld. counsel for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Ms. Kajal Chandra for the petitioner Suit No. 1836-A/98 Counsel appearing for the petitioner accepts notice of filing of award on behalf of the petitioner. No objections are to be filed. Left fresh court notice of filing of award be issued to the respondent, without process fee for 19.2.99. Joint Registrar" 4. It is, therefore, contended by relying upon the learned Single Judge's jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pertinent to refer to the finding of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment wherein the learned Single Judge has held as follows: "Be that as it may, the fact remains that the award is being sought to be modified or set aside in respect of the interest by the executing court. The award has already attained the status of a decree. The executing court cannot go behind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant to raise this plea, at this juncture, would be unfair to the respondent beside being inequitable and unjust. It is not even the case of the appellant/ petitioner that the award was made rule of the court without the consent of the parties. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
