DEVENDRA KUMAR vs PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER Advocate - C.S.C. — A227/4747/2026

Disposed: -- on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Apr-2026

CNR: UPHC012005722026

Filing Number

A227/

Filing Date

02-Apr-2026

Registration No

A227/4747/2026

Registration Date

07-Apr-2026

Judge

Vikas Budhwar

Coram

Vikas Budhwar

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Matters under Article 227 of Constitution of India ( 185100 )

Sub-Category

( 14 )

Judicial Branch

Civil WRITS

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 24-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DEVENDRA KUMAR

    Adv. RAMESH CHANDRA TIWARI,HARSH TIWARI,HARSH TIWARI, ,HARSH TIWARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER Advocate - C.S.C.

  2. 2.COMPETENT AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    As Fresh

    Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

  3. 01-May-2026

    Rohit Ranjan AgarwalView PDF

    The High Court of Allahabad heard a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of Devendra Kumar's Article 227 petition challenging a Special Land Acquisition Officer's award. The respondents argued the petition was not maintainable as Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 provides no remedy against such awards, leaving only Article 226 petition for execution. The court adjourned the matter for the petitioner's counsel to review relevant provisions before proceeding further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 01-May-2026

    —

    Kshitij Shailendra

  5. 24-Apr-2026

    —

    Vikas Budhwar

  6. 17-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 10-Apr-2026

    Vikas BudhwarView PDF

  8. 02-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. A227/4747/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Allahabad heard a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of Devendra Kumar's Article 227 petition challenging a Special Land Acquisition Officer's award. The respondents argued the petition was not maintainable as Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 provides no remedy against such awards, leaving only Article 226 petition for execution. The court adjourned the matter for the petitioner's counsel to review relevant provisions before proceeding further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case