IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2290 OF 2005 IN REVIEW PETITION (l) NO.18 OF 2005 IN APPEAL NO.753 OF 2004 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.169 OF 2004 Vijay A.M. ..Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Badjate & Associates and another ..Respondents. .... Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr. Hemang Jariwala i/b Auroma Law for Respondent No.1. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, & S. J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. 17th September, 2007. P.C. : The delay of 35 days has been satisfactorily explained. Counsel appearing for the First Respondent who is a contesting party has no objection to the delay being condoned particularly since the parties are inclined to settle the dispute. The Notice of Motion is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause A. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.