ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–From the successive order-sheets, it is apparent that perceiving the dispute amongst the parties to be contractual one, O.P. No.2 was noticed, whose appearance though was secured during admission stage having by way of counter affidavit (Flag A), but became absent since thereafter and further, it also transpires that on a disclosure that Request Case No. 61/2007 (Arbitration proceeding) was going on, therefore, parties were directed to avail the aforesaid opportunity in order to come to a logical end which is found lingering on account of non co-operation of O.P. No.2/complainant by way of their absence and thus, vide order dated 21.01.2014, instant petition has been admitted. Again O.P. No.2/complainant has been noticed on the score of hearing even then, O.P. No.2 failed to appear and on account thereof, considering the matter pending since 2007, it has been heard.

2. It is also apparent from the record that initially, petition was filed by Kanodia Developers Private Limited as petitioner no.1 as well as Indra Kumar Kanodia, petitioner no.2 exposing himself to be Managing Director of petitioner no.1. During pendency of instant petition, Indra Kumar Kanodia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document