Valmiki J. Mehta, J (Oral)

1. This matter was passed over on the first call and adjournment prayed was refused as it was opposed. Even on the second call the counsel for the appellant refuses to argue the appeal. Counsel for the respondent very vehemently opposes the adjournment and says that the hue and cry of compromise talk is urged although no compromise talks have taken place and just a few minutes back some suggestions were given for compromise as a basis to seek adjournment. It is stated that the object of the appellant is to delay and drag the case and not make payments to the respondent under the Award, although, work has been completed long back and the respondent is out of pocket with respect to amounts spent since the year 1997. Since learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant refuses to argue the case, I have heard the counsel for the respondent and am proceeding to dispose of this appeal which is pending since seven years.

2. This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order of the court below dated 25.11.2006 dismissing the objections under Section 34 of the Act filed by the appellant herein