- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH VPH VPH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION No. 4320 OF 2006 OF MOTION No. 4320 OF 2006 OF MOTION No. 4320 OF 2006 IN IN IN ARBITRATION ARBITRATION ARBITRATION PETITION (L) No. 522 OF 200 PETITION (L) No. 522 OF 200 PETITION (L) No. 522 OF 2006 Girish Reddy ... Petitioner Vs. Principal Chief Engineer, Central Railway, Mumbai ... Respondent Mr. A. S. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner/applicant. Ms. Seema Chhetre i/b Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. : D. G. KARNIK, J. : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 8, 2007. : MARCH 8, 2007. : MARCH 8, 2007. PC PC PC :- :- :- . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application is made for condonation of dealy of 7 days in filing the petition under S. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1964. 3. Sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act empowers the - 2 - court to condone the delay, of not exceeding 30 days, if the court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for not making the application within the period prescribed. In paragraph 4 and 5 of the Notice of Motion, the petitioner has explained the delay. No affidavit in reply has been filed, denying the averments in the Notice of Motion. In the circumstances, the averments are deemed to be admitted. Hence, the delay is condoned and the motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Sd/- [ D.G. KARNIK, J.] D.G. KARNIK, J.] D.G. KARNIK, J.]