The court emphasized the necessity for petitioners to comply with procedural mandates, dismissing the case due to lack of effective prosecution.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.560 of 2025 and A.No.4551 of 2025

1.M/s.Pearl Community One Developers Pvt. Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Maurius Anton Chrislyn Cardoza, Old No.33, New No.8/1, Haudin Road, Bengaluru – 560 042.

2.Maurius Anton Chrislyn Cardoza .... Petitioners Vs.

Praveen Manavalan represented by its power Agent Mrs.Tharini Manavalan Flat No.1A, Ramaniyam Saraswathi, B-17, 22^nd Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. .... Respondent Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) filed under Section

34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the award dated 11.04.2025 in Arb.O.P.No.428 of 2023 passed by the sole Arbitrator in its entirety.

For Petitioners : Mr.Adeesh Anto for Mr.S.Marimuthu For Respondent : Mr.S.Arjun Suresh and Mr.Anisha Gupta *****

ORDER

This petition was filed under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the award dated 11.04.2025 in Arb.O.P.No.428 of 2023 passed by the sole Arbitrator in its entirety.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the second petitioner met with an accident and therefore, once again sought for time.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 10.11.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“In spite of the earlier order passed by this Court on

07.11.2025, till date no affidavit has been filed. 2. There is no representation for the petitioner.

Post this application under the caption “for dismissal”

on 12.11.2025.”

When the matter is listed under the caption 'for dismissal', the petitioner is expected to get ready with the matter and comply with the earlier directions issued by this Court. This Court is able to see that the petitioners are only trying to drag on the proceedings by giving lame excuses. Since the matter is listed under the caption 'for dismissal' and the petitioner is not effectively prosecuting this petition and is also not complying with the earlier directions issued by this Court, this petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently, connected application is closed.