The petitioner failed to appear or be represented on multiple dates. The court found the petitioner lacked interest in prosecuting the arbitration petition and dismissed it for want of prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(25)ARP-132-2023.doc
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.132 of 2023
Wasim Ahmed Mohammed Jaish ] .. Petitioner vs. Aslam Hasan Miyan Surme ] .. Respondent
None for the Petition.
Mr.Vishal Raman a/w Mujtaba Shaikh i/b Legal India for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J
DATE : 7th February, 2024.
P.C.
1] None for the Petitioner. On 05.01.2024 also none represented the Petitioner.
On 24.01.2024, it was directed that the order dated 21.06.2023 should be complied within one week. However, there is no compliance thereof.
2] It is evident that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the Arbitration Petition and that is why is not present nor he is represented today.
In the wake of above, Arbitration Petition stand dismissed for want of prosecution.
1/2
(25)ARP-132-2023.doc
[BHARATI DANGRE, J]
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is interested in prosecuting the arbitration petition?
Wasim Ahmed Mohammed Jaish
Aslam Hasan Miyan Surme
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
