1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1636/2008 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.400/2007 New India Assurance Co. Ltd.. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Park Synthetics and another. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Harinder Toor with Mr.Rajiv Singh, Advocates i/b M/s Crawford Bayley and Company, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Sushanth S. Murthy i/b Madhur R. Baya, Advocate for the Respondents. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 16th July, 2009. PC:- 1 By this Notice of Motion the Petitioner in Arbitration Petition is seeking to set aside the order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the petition for non prosecution. 2 According to the Petitioner, the petition was listed on 03.04.2008 before the Court and the junior Advocate for the Petitioner mentioned the matter at 11:00 am that the same be taken up at 3:00 pm as the Advocate who was incharge of the case was held up on account of some personal difficulty. The Court kept back 2 the matter and the kept back matters were called out after the daily board was over at 1:00 pm. When the matter was called out at 1:00 pm, no Advocate was present on behalf of the Petitioner. Hence, the Court was pleased to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution. It is further submitted that the Advocate mentioned the matter at 3:00 pm on the same day, however, the Court asked the Petitioner to file appropriate Notice of Motion for setting aside the order and thus, without loss of much time on 21.04.2008 the present Notice of Motion was moved. 3 The Arbitration Petition is directed against the order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the arbitral award dated 14.04.2007 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. It is submitted that the award is for an amount of more than Rs.2 Crore and if and in case the petition is not restored the Petitioner-New India Assurance Company Limited would be put to suffer irreparable loss, hardship and inconvenience. 4 Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents has opposed the Notice of Motion by contending that the award passed in the year 2007 could not be executed on account of pendency of the petition and though the petition came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 03.04.2008, the present Notice of Motion has not been promptly circulated and listed for orders. True it is. The Notice of Motion is pending for a period of over one year. 5 Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to allow the Notice of Motion, however, subject to payment of costs. The Respondents need to be compensated. In the result, the Notice of Motion is 3 allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents within a period of two weeks from today. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J) kps