NEWSPRINT SALES CORPORATION Vs. DAILY PRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Award was published in the year 1992. It was filed in this Court and notice of filing of the award was served upon the parties. Vide IA No.8121/1993, respondent has filed objections to the award. For one reason or the other, matter was being adjourned from time to time. Order sheet is replete with repeated adjournments taken by the parties.

(2.) On 1.8.2006 when matter was listed before me, once again parties sought adjournment. I declined to adjourn the matter, recording that matter was pending in this Court for over 14 years. I direct parties to file written submissions. At the first instance, respondent/objector was required to file written submissions within a week and thereafter petitioner was to respond within a week.

(3.) Objector/respondent has filed written submissions. Petitioner has failed to do so. 4 weeks have gone by and, therefore, I am pronouncing judgment on the basis of the written pleadings of the petitioner and those of the respondent. Of course, written submissions filed by the respondent are also taken into account.