1 JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 88 OF 2009 Arun K. Pandey. ... Petitioner. V/s. Madanlal Gupta. ... Respondent. Mr. Pramod Y. Keni i/b. Thakordas & Madgavkar for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Purohit i/b. Vinod Mistry & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 08th JUNE 2010. P.C. :- Heard learned Advocates on both sides. The Petitioner challenges the Award passed by the sole Arbitrator dated 18th June 2008. My attention was drawn by the learned Advocate for the Respondent to page 87 of the paper-book and in particular, paragraph 24(g) of the Award where the Advocate for the present Petitioner by his letter dated 15th November 2002 addressed a letter to the Claimant i.e. the Respondent in the present Petition and requested the present Respondent – Claimant to extend the period of repayment of the said total amount by further three months. If this is the position, it is clear that the present Petitioner has accepted the liability. It is 2 clear that the learned Arbitrator has considered all the facts and circumstances in the appropriate perspective and has passed an Award. 2. On consideration of the entire record, I am inclined to observe that no case for interference is made out. 3. Apart from the aforesaid observation, learned Advocate for the Petitioner tendered in the Court a declaration in the form of an affidavit filed by one Mr. Ajay Kapur being a affidavit dated 8th June 2010. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner contended that said Mr. Ajay Kapur has agreed to pay to the present Respondents and put an end to the matter. This is an additional circumstance. It appears that the present Petitioner had acted as a mediator for said Mr. Ajay Kapur. 4. In my view, no case for interference is required. The Petition cannot be admitted. The Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)