JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, C.J.

1. This I.A. is an abuse of the process of the Court.

2. On the ground that the Managing Director is not available or is transferred, this is the second time that adjournment is applied for, even though, earlier adjournment was granted, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

3. Surprisingly, even the costs have not been paid. The transfer of the Managing Director can hardly be a ground for the respondent-Corporation not to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/-. This is a matter where the respondent is bent upon delaying the matter. The reasons given in the I.A. are far from convincing.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the costs of Rs. 10,000/- will be paid by 2.30 this afternoon. This statement is accepted.

5. Another reason for the adjournment is that a counsel has been engaged. Apart from the fact that this cannot be a good ground for adjournment, it is necessary to note that in the order dated 10.04.2026, the learned Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of the respondent had made a statement that a reply will be filed by 22.04.2026 without seeking any further extension. Even at that time, the application for adjournment had not inspired much confidence. After recording this fact, adjournment was reluctantly granted, since the statement was made that costs of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid before the next date.

6. Today, none of the statements made by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent have been complied with.

7. Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel for the applicant states that on one hand, adjustments are being applied for, and on the other hand, the respondent is acting adverse to the interests of the applicant. He further pointed out that the applicant had instituted a writ petition and the same was opposed on the ground of existence of an arbitration clause. Now that the applicant is seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, the matter is being unduly delayed.

8. For all the above reasons, this I.A. is dismissed.

Arbitration Application No. 1 of 2026

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. This is an application seeking appointment of Arbitrator by invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (said Act).

11. On two occasions, adjournments were applied for by the respondent for filing a reply. On the first occasion, the adjournment was granted, subject to certain conditions which the respondent have failed to comply. Without complying with those conditions, today, once again, an I.A. was filed seeking adjournment. The said I.A. has since been dismissed by passing a speaking order.

12. The disputes have arisen between the parties. The applicant initially instituted W.P.C. (Filing) No. 10671 of 2025 in this Court seeking redressal. 13. Mr. Gadodia submitted that the respondent herein objected to the maintainability of the petition by pointing out that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties and, therefore, the applicant should be relegated to avail of the alternate remedy available to it under the law.

14. Therefore, the applicant, withdrew the writ petition with liberty to avail the remedy available to it under the law. The withdrawal was permitted with the liberty as prayed for. This is evident from the order dated 19.09.2025, disposing of W.P.(C) (Filing) No. 10671 of 2025.

15. After the disposal of the writ petition, the applicant, through its lawyer’s notice dated 04.10.2025, invoked the arbitration clause 14 in the agreement dated 19.06.2024 and sought the appointment of an Arbitrator. Mr Gadodia submitted that the respondent, despite receipt of the legal notice dated 04.10.2025, neither consented to the appointment of any Arbitrator nor bothered even to file a reply to the notice dated 04.10.2025, by which the arbitration clause was invoked.

16. Clause 14 of the Agreement dated 19.06.2024 between the parties provides for the resolution of disputes through arbitration. Letter of Intent dated 30.03.2025 also extends a