1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 1181 OF 2009 VoiceGate Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Cellcast Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Anand Pujari i/by M/s. S.I. Joshi & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kamat i/by M/s. Ashok Purohit & Co. for Respondent No.1. Ms. Anusha Jagdeesh i/by M/s. Bharucha & Partner for Respondent No.2. Mr. Rahul Thackedath i/by P.B. Anand for Respondent No.6. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 11TH MARCH, 2010. P.C.- 1 The parties have settled the matter out of the Court and accordingly signed the consent terms dated 11/03/2010. It is taken on record and marked "X". The consent terms are basically between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 as the alleged claim of the Petitioner is only against Respondent No.1. Other Respondents who are the service providers, have nothing to do with the claim so raised. 2 It is also counter signed by the respective advocates. There is no objection with regard to the signature, identity and authorization of any kind. The statement is made that no third person/party will be affected by 2 this consent terms and the consent terms are well within the framework of law and the record. 3 The present Petition is accordingly disposed of in view of the consent terms. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)