NAJMI WAZIRI

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he had not received a copy of the reply. The reply was neither filed within time nor is there any application seeking condonation of delay of almost four weeks. Accordingly, it was not taken into consideration. Counsels for the parties stated that the matter may be heard on merits on the basis of the records available. Accordingly, the parties have been heard and the matter was reserved for consideration.

2. This batch of petitions challenge an order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the Trial Court which rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) seeking reference of the suits to Arbitration.

3. The respondent had filed the batch of suits seeking injunction and declaration thereby declaring the letter dated 30.06.2012 as null and void and inoperative against the respondent, as well as for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the petitioners from selling, parting with, subletting, assigning or otherwise parting with possession of the suit property in the project of the petitioner namely “Aloha” at Rishikesh; etc.

4. The respondent had ag