1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1777 OF 2008 IN ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 15 OF 2008 M/s. Real FAB India Ors .. Petitioners Vs L & T Finance Limited .. Respondents None for the petitioners Mrs. S. I. Joshi for the respondents CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J DATE : 07th JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The notice of motion is taken out for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 2. As recorded in the order passed by this court dated 27th February 2009, the advocates for the petitioners had informed the court that they have instructions to submit that the rubber stamp of the petitioner no. 1 on the acknowledgment card of the postal authorities is not that of petitioner no.1 but the same is fabricated. Rma NMS1777-08.sxw 2 That being a very serious allegation, the court had directed the advocate for the petitioners to keep their instructing client present in court on Monday, 2nd March, 2009. 3. On 2nd March 2009, Mr. K. Karunkara Rao, Petitioner No. 2 was present in court. Mr. Rao informed the court in presence of his advocates that he has seen the said rubber stamp for the first time on that day and he had not given any instructions about the rubber stamp to his lawyers in the past. In view thereof, the advocates appearing for the petitioners withdrew themselves from the matter. Mr. Y.R. Shah, advocate on record was also allowed to take discharge from acting as advocate for the petitioners in the above petition. Time was given to the petitioners to appoint new advocates in the matter and the matter was adjourned to 13th March, 2009. 4. On 13th March 2009, Mr. K. Karunkara Rao, petitioner no. 2 remained present in court and sought further time in the matter. The matter was therefore, adjourned to 26th March, 2009. 5. On 6th April 2009, when the matter appeared before this court, none appeared for the petitioners. This court, therefore, directed the office to write a letter to Mr. K. Karunkara Rao, petitioner no. 2 Rma NMS1777-08.sxw 3 informing him that the notice of motion is kept for hearing on 20th April 2009 and that if the respondents fail to appear in person and / or through their advocates and further fails to proceed with the notice of motion on merits, the notice of motion shall stand dismissed without giving any further opportunity to the respondents. 6. Petitioner no. 2 started writing letters directly to this court seeking time. Since no party to the proceedings can directly communicate with the concerned Judge by way of letters or otherwise, except appearing before the Court and making submissions, this Court has not taken cognizance of any of such letters written by the petitioner no. 2. 7. Thereafter, the notice of motion once again appeared before this court on 6th July, 2009 when none appeared for the petitioners. The notice of motion, was therefore, directed to be placed on board for dismissal. 8. Today, none appears for the petitioners. This court, is, therefore, constrained to dismiss the notice of motion for want of prosecution. Hence, notice of motion dismissed for want of prosecution. Rma NMS1777-08.sxw 4 (S.J. KATHAWALLA, J) Rma NMS1777-08.sxw