Court Upholds Liability Admission Despite Absence

The court dismissed the application seeking to set aside an order of admission due to the company's absence during the hearing. The court found the company's explanation of misplaced papers insufficient, stating negligence cannot excuse absence. The reconciliation statement was deemed genuine and legally valid, indicating the company's liability. The court upheld the admission of liability by the company despite challenges raised by the petitioner. The application was rejected, with the court finding no merit in the arguments presented, including those related to the reconciliation statement, arbitration clause invocation, and compliance with payment conditions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Setting aside an order of admission dated 16-4-1999.
2. Justification for absence of the company during the hearing.
3. Validity of reconciliation statement and its impact on the petition.
4. Invocation of arbitration clause and its relevance to the company petition.
5. Compliance with payment conditions as per contract clause 7.3.
6. Admission of liability by the company despite issues raised by the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The application sought to set aside an order of admission dated 16-4-1999 due to the company's absence during the hearing. The company claimed papers were misplaced, but the court found this explanation insufficient, stating negligence could not excuse the absence. The petition was admitted ex parte, and the delay was not justified.

2. The validity of the reconciliation statement was challenged by the petitioner, claiming it was antedated and not legally valid. However, the court found the statement to be genuine and upheld its validity. The reconciliation statement indicated the company's liability, and the court accepted it as presented.

3. The invocation of the arbitration clause by the petitioner was raised as a point of contention, suggesting disputes between the parties. The court dismissed this argument, stating that arbitration proceedings or civil suits do not bar the maintainability of a company petition. The existence of disputes did not invalidate the petition.

4. Compliance with payment conditions under contract clause 7.3 was questioned, as invoices were allegedly not certified by the company as required. The respondent argued that the reconciliation statement waived this condition, and a letter admitting liability further supported this claim. The court accepted the liability admission, even if the reconciliation statement did not fully comply with the contract clause.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the applicant. Despite the challenges raised regarding the reconciliation statement, arbitration clause invocation, and payment conditions, the court upheld the admission of the company's liability. The application to set aside the order of admission was rejected based on the evidence and arguments presented during the hearing.

---