$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. (COMM) 306/2016 & I.A. 2599/2024 VIRKARAN AWASTY ..... Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus HASSAD NETHERLANDS B.V. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Samar Kachwaha, Ms. Ankit Khushu, Ms. Akanksha Mohan, Mr. Pratyush Khanna, Ms. Bhavana Chandak & Ms. Aanya Saluja, Advs. for R-1 & R-2. (M: 9560154599) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 30.04.2024 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A.2599/2024 (for withdrawal of vakalatnama) 2. This is an application seeking withdrawal of vakalatnama of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Petitioner’s counsel is, accordingly, discharged. 3. The Petitioner in the present petition seeks to challenge the arbitral award dated 31st May, 2016, passed by the ld. Arbitral Tribunal in LCIA India Case No. 14006 titled ‘Hassad Netherlands B.V. & Hassad Food Company QSC v. Virkaran Awasty and Ritika Awasty’. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent handed over to the Court a list of events in the present matter. After having reviewed the chronology of events in this case and considering the fact that the Petitioner has sought repeated adjournments either for a hearing or for filing an application for discharge, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 03:12:26 the Court is not inclined to keep the matter pending. The Court notice is also stated to be unserved as the Petitioner is no longer residing at the address mentioned in the memo of parties. The said list of events is taken on record. 5. Insofar as the main petition O.M.P. (COMM) 306/2016 is concerned, no one appears for the Petitioner. Since notice has already been issued by the ld. Counsel, and for the last several hearings i.e. 19th July, 2023 and 7th November, 2023, the counsel has been in the process of moving the application seeking discharge of counsel, accordingly, the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’), is dismissed for non-prosecution. 6. The proxy counsel for the Petitioner, at this stage, submits that she was approached by another counsel, who has now been engaged by the Petitioner. If so, the said counsel ought to have been present before the Court. 7. Thus, the present petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. All pending applications are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. APRIL 30, 2024/dk/dn This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 03:12:26