Agile Informatics Nishu Gupta 4DimensionsTechnology Solutions review: 50K Job Offer and Fake Resume Scam 23

They are madharchod even Dinesh/ Umesh, Vinod and serves his sister to his recruiting team and ask to team do not ask for salary. any one want proof i can give him full .pst file of this ###ing organization. you can also visit http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fraud-staffing-companies-in-India/267120420092900?ref=hl . Here are their ###ing recruiters who help them to make fraud (fred@wwdts.com; mark@wwdts.com; ron@wwdts.com; marvin@wwdts.com; ben@wwdts.com; nick@wwdts.com; andy@wwdts.com; nitu@wwdts.com)

They are totally fake and dont pay salary ...recently started WWDTS as their new company.. Beware of that

wat a load of BS.. now Agile is paying folks to write good about them in poor English.. Way to go you losers.. dont you have anything betteer to do than suck up to a cheat like Dinesh Gupta. shame on you for backing up a false person

Agile Informatics is really very good and reputed company. Last four years i am working with this organization this is really very good company and in market it has great good will. So if you people worried to read these negative comments than dnt worry go ahead and join this company you have great future with it.

““I would like to extend a huge THANK YOU to the entire management of Agile informatics who give me opportunity to work with there organization. Great people great work environment of work so dn't bothered negative comment some foolish people do that if you want to work with this organization than your most welcome.

It is definitely a scam! Be wise...dont put your hard earned money in these fraud schemes. The business model is actually crafted very wickedly...makes you believe that the products sold are of numismatic value n crap.
Most of the posts here those people who fired people.

We are totally denying this kind of complaint against this person who put this wrong information in internet. Actually we are a company having Software development division working together successfully past 9 years effectively. we are giving very good service and taking care of employee welfare by putting HR-POLICY clearly. So We requesting all people on internet, please dont believe such a wrong information in future.

Please don't consider these comments. Everything are fake which people wrote comments they are also fake. People those who want to shine their career in the IT field, join this company. It's my humble request. It's all are a wrong information, it is absolutely false. If you have doubt, ask anybody else near by you in the city. Job is the essential part of the human life. So please be take care of this fraudulent concern.

I ma agree with you Ajay, if you grow than people feel jealous they do same types of things which do they above. So dn't bother about these types of comments these all are fake just use to spoil the name of Dinesh Gupta.

If you are looking to advance your career, it is absolutely essential to seek the guidance and help of a mentor: a suitably experienced person with whom you can discuss your career goals, obstacles, and generally work with to solicit confidential guidance and direction on the best course of action to take.

Career objectives are the fundamental principles the candidate brings to the table. It enables them to promote their ideas, skills and abilities that an organization can utilize for the sole purpose of growing the company. The better a candidate can articulate the message the better the chances they can get In Agile Informatics. Agile Informatics is only one company which provides you best services and give great chance to make your career here

Hi all, I personally know these people like Mic, aarti, pestimi. These all fired from Agile informatics thats why they do these foolish things. Actually now they have no options how to take revenge with Dinesh Gupta thats why they are putting wrong comments. Dn't read all above negative comments go ahead everything is false which wrote above about Dinesh Gupta.

Hi guys please don't read these above comments actually when somebody rise up than people feel jealous and they do these nonsense type things. I am working with Agile informatics from last 3.5 years its really very good company there is great chance to make career. Avoid these comments and trust on Agile informatics and make your bright future.

Awful for them n Indians too!

Thanks for putting this up. Saves others like me

Sorry for you lady. These guys will be behind bars soon for their wrong doings. The law will get to them eventually, this is America.

Dinesh Gupta is a complete &%#(%#% and now he has begun new ways in INDIA to fool people.. he has started immigration services in morning shift and consultancy work in night shift... bloody drunker ...

his employees in USA specially MEghan .. his blue eyed employee and his idiot daughters are a complete non sense... they hire people saying big things and actually they are doing wrong things with innocent people and students in USA...

he wants to fulfil his targets and nonsense ... no incentives for his employees ... his peons are his back bone .. all [censor] of higher order and all drunkers...

a DOG from USA is cheating people in USA and now in INDIA...

Mr. Dinesh, my advice to you .. please stop making money from wrong sources... saale kute ki maut merega harami... do something nice in your life .. u son of a [censor]...

Dinesh Gupta is a [censor] and have no respect for women and his employess... now he has statred the immigration business and is contacting local colleges in Punjab and chandigarh... complete [censor] ...

Please this is my advice to all not to go for such idiots and his companies...

Dinesh Gupta is running from the law..Fugitive i would say

EBUSINESS APPLICATION SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND RESPONDENTS,
v.
DINESH GUPTA ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV095811)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rushing, P.J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Appellants Dinesh Gupta and Sunita Gupta separately appeal from a judgment confirming a contractual arbitration award against them.*fn1 Dinesh Gupta contends that he was denied due process when the panel of arbitrators refused to permit his lawyer to testify as to his state of mind relative to the issue of punitive damages. Sunita Gupta claims that the arbitrators‟ award of attorney fees and costs against her was improper, because none of the claims and defenses submitted for decision involved her. Respondents eBusiness Application Solutions, Inc., Ravinder Saini, Gurinder Saini, Ajay Chopra and Jessica Chopra have filed a motion seeking sanctions against Sunita Gupta for taking a frivolous appeal solely for the purpose of causing delay.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY*fn2

Ravinder Saini (Ravinder) and Jessica Chopra (Jessica) are brother and sister, born and raised in India.

Jessica and Ravinder came to the United States and started businesses in the technical staffing industry, in which the business recruits, trains and places software consultants in the fields of software quality assurance, business analysis, and configuration management. Technical staffing companies make substantial investments in recruiting and screening potential candidates, assisting them in relocating, training them, ensuring proper work status for those who are foreign nationals, and placing them as consultants. Ravinder started Accurate Software (Accurate) in 1997. Jessica started eBusiness Application Solutions, Inc. (eBAS) in 2000.

Dinesh Gupta (Dinesh) was a family friend of Ravinder and Jessica in India. He came to the United States in 1999 and began working for Ajay Chopra (Ajay), Jessica‟s husband. In 2000, he joined Jessica at eBAS. Dinesh became a trusted employee at eBAS, with access to highly confidential information about eBAS‟s clients, consultants, and economic dealings. eBAS stored all of its information in electronic form in password-protected computers. Dinesh had the highest level of access to all of eBAS‟s confidential and trade secret information.

On December 2, 2003, Dinesh signed a non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreement with eBAS, whereby he promised not to disclose any of eBAS‟s confidential information, not to solicit eBAS‟s clients after termination of his employment, and not to solicit eBAS‟s consultants during his employment and for one year thereafter.

On February 3, 2005, shortly after receiving his green card, Dinesh resigned from eBAS. Shortly thereafter, eBAS discovered that while Dinesh was still employed, he had sent voluminous amounts of eBAS‟s documents and information to his personal e-mail account, including attorney-client communications between eBAS and its attorneys and spreadsheets with the names and contact information of eBAS clients. Dinesh spread rumors that eBAS was going to close and that everyone working there would be out of a job, which was particularly troubling to those eBAS consultants whose legal status in the United States was dependent upon their employment with eBAS.

Within a week of leaving eBAS, Dinesh and Ravinder started a competitive business known as Kuber Infotek, LLC (Kuber). Kuber‟s articles of incorporation identified Sunita Gupta (Dinesh‟s wife) and Gurinder Saini (Ravinder‟s wife) as members of Kuber. In April 2005, Sunita and Gurinder signed an operating agreement that named their husbands as the company‟s managers and gave each an equal 50 percent control over operations. The following month, the two couples (Sunita and Dinesh, Ravinder and Gurinder) entered into an agreement entitled "Kuber Infotech LLC Operating Protocols."

In July 2005, Dinesh and Ravinder formed Hightech Technologies, LLC for the purpose of training Kuber employees. They then signed an operating agreement for Hightech that was similar to Kuber‟s Operating Agreement.

In September 2005, eBAS filed suit against Dinesh and Ravinder for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, trade secret theft and similar claims. Dinesh cross-complained for wrongful termination and unpaid commissions.

Differences arose between Dinesh and Ravinder over how Kuber should be operated and how the eBAS litigation should be pursued. Thereafter, Dinesh allegedly shut Ravinder out of the business. To Dinesh‟s consternation, Ravinder allegedly wrote checks on the Kuber account to reimburse Accurate.

More lawsuits followed. On November 15, 2005, Dinesh and Sunita sued eBAS, Jessica, Ajay, Ravinder and Gurinder. Two days later, Ravinder and Gurinder sued Kuber, Hightech, Dinesh and Sunita. In February, Sunita and Kuber sued Gurinder. Finally, in August 2006, Kuber filed a complaint against Accurate and Ravinder.

In July 2006, the parties agreed to submit all existing disputes to binding arbitration, to be conducted before a panel of three arbitrators. It was further agreed that the parties to the arbitration might include, depending upon the claims and cross-claims asserted, Dinesh, Sunita, Ravinder, Gurinder, Jessica, Ajay, eBAS, Accurate, Hightech, and Kuber.

The arbitration commenced on March 3, 2007. On March 13, 2007, the parties stipulated in writing to the claims and defenses to be decided. The list of submitted claims and defenses, which was quite detailed, focused on Dinesh‟s conduct and did not mention Sunita. It did not expressly include or exclude any claims asserted by or against her.

The arbitrators issued an interim award in May 2007. The interim award stated that eBAS was entitled to (1) $1, 967, 717.00 in compensatory damages against Dinesh, (2) punitive damages against Dinesh in his individual capacity, and (3) attorney fees and costs. Ravinder and Gurinder were found to be entitled to (1) nominal damages of $1.00 against Dinesh, (2) a one-half interest in Kuber, valued at $150, 000.00, and (3) attorney fees and costs, as prevailing parties in their claims and defenses against Dinesh and Sunita. Dinesh and Kuber were awarded nominal damages of $1.00 against Ravinder. The interim award specified that the amounts of punitive damages, attorney fees and costs were to be determined in subsequent proceedings.

In July 2007, the following post-decision motions were heard and taken under consideration by the arbitration panel: (1) the motion of dinesh, Sunita and Kuber (collectively, "the Gupta parties") for Reconsideration of the Interim Award; (2) the motion of eBAS, Ravinder, Gurinder, Jessica, and Ajay (collectively, "the eBAS parties") for punitive damages; (3) the eBAS parties‟ motion for attorneys fees and costs; and (4) the Gupta parties‟ motion for attorneys fees and costs.

The Gupta parties‟ Motion for Reconsideration was based in part on Dinesh‟s argument that he was denied due process because his attorney, Kevin Bedolla, was not permitted to testify on his behalf during the arbitration. The subject of Mr. Bedolla‟s anticipated testimony was Dinesh‟s state of mind as it pertained to the issue of punitive damages. The Gupta parties proffered a written declaration from Mr. Bedolla, listing 14 areas on which he would have testified at the arbitration, had he been permitted. The panel noted that the issue had been raised, argued and decided at the arbitration, where the Gupta parties‟ identical offer of proof as to Mr. Bedolla‟s testimony was rejected. The panel found that Respondents had not been prejudiced by the exclusion of Mr. Bedolla‟s testimony at arbitration because all of the facts he was prepared to testify on had already been presented to the panel through other documents and witnesses. Moreover, Dinesh had been given an opportunity to testify about the same facts himself, but had chosen not to. Therefore, the panel concluded that Mr. Bedolla‟s testimony was properly excluded under Evidence Code section 352 on the grounds that it was redundant, time-consuming, and potentially prejudicial to his own client in the event he was cross-examined by opposing counsel.

On September 25, 2007, the panel issued a final award denying the motion for reconsideration and confirming the interim award. The amounts of punitive damages and attorneys fees were fixed as follows. eBAS was awarded $200, 000.00 in punitive damages against Dinesh Gupta. As a prevailing party, eBAS was also awarded $835, 586.00 in attorney fees against Dinesh, Sunita, and Kuber. Ravinder and Gurinder were awarded a nominal sum of $1.00 for Dinesh‟s breach of fiduciary duty. As prevailing parties on their claims and defenses against Dinesh and Sunita, Ravinder and Gurinder were awarded attorney fees in the sum of $596, 781.50. Lastly, eBAS, Ravinder and Surinder were awarded costs in the amount of $221, 716.16 against Dinesh, Sunita and Kuber.

The eBAS parties then petitioned the trial court to confirm the arbitration award. The Gupta parties opposed the petition and sought instead to vacate the award, again arguing that they had been substantially prejudiced at the arbitration hearing by the panel‟s refusal to permit the testimony of Mr. Bedolla. At the hearing on the petition to confirm the award, counsel for the Gupta parties raised a new argument that the award of fees and costs against Sunita should be corrected because there were no claims by or against her on the list of issues submitted to the arbitrators for decision. Opposing counsel objected to this new argument, stating that he had not been given an adequate opportunity to respond because Sunita‟s claim had not been raised in her written response. The trial court granted the petition without comment on Sunita‟s request for correction and issued a judgment confirming contractual arbitration award on December 12, 2007.

Dinesh and Sunita each separately appeal from the Judgment confirming the Final Award.

DISCUSSION

Dinesh contends that the panel erred when it decided to exclude his attorney‟s testimony. Sunita contests the award of fees and costs against her, arguing that the arbitrators had no authority to make that award because her claims and defenses were not included on the list of issues submitted for decision.

With few exceptions, California courts adhere to a general rule of arbitral finality. "California favors arbitration as a speedy means of settling disputes, and to facilitate the policy it is essential that arbitration judgments are binding and final. (A.M. Classic Construction, Inc. v. Tri-Build Development Co. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1470, [protected] . . . .) Accordingly, arbitration judgments are subject to extremely narrow judicial review and the exclusive grounds for vacating an arbitration award are the statutory grounds set forth in [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1286.2 (Marsch v. Williams (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 238, 243-244 . . ., citing Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 . . .), such as the "award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means, ‟ or the arbitrator exceeded his or her powers ([Code Civ. Proc., ] § 1286.2, subd. (a)(1), (4)). "Unless one of the enumerated grounds exists, a court may not vacate an award even if it contains a legal or factual error on its face which results in substantial injustice.‟ (Marsch v. Williams, supra, [23 Cal.App.4th at pp. 243-244.)" (Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP v. Paul Koch [protected] Cal.App.4th 720, 728.)

I. Exclusion of Attorney Bedolla's Testimony

Dinesh contends that he is entitled to have the judgment reversed and the punitive damages award against him vacated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5), which provides that an arbitration award may be vacated when "[t]he rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by . . . the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy . . . ." He argues that he was prejudiced by the exclusion of Mr. Bedolla‟s testimony, which was material to the issue of punitive damages because it would have shown that he relied solely on the advice of counsel and thus did not have the requisite state of mind to support a finding of malice.

Where a party seeks to vacate an arbitration award on this basis, "the reviewing court should generally focus first on prejudice, not materiality. To find substantial prejudice the court must accept, for purposes of analysis, the arbitrator‟s legal theory and conclude that the arbitrator might well have made a different award had the evidence been allowed." (Hall v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 427, 439.)

Dinesh has not shown substantial prejudice. The arbitrators‟ legal theory with respect to the award of punitive damages against him was that he had misappropriated eBAS‟s trade secrets with a clear design to set himself up as a competitor, and that in doing so he had acted with malice, as defined in Civil Code section 3294. Dinesh was given an opportunity at the arbitration hearing to present evidence of his state of mind by making a detailed offer of proof as to his attorney‟s intended testimony, which he did. Thus, the panel did fairly consider the evidence before deciding to exclude it on the ground that it was redundant, time-consuming and prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352. Moreover, Dinesh was given an opportunity to present much the same evidence through his own testimony, but he declined. On this record, there is no basis to conclude that the award would have been different had Dinesh been permitted to replace his informal offer with actual testimony from Mr. Bedolla. Accordingly, judicial review of the panel‟s decision to exclude Mr. Bedolla‟s testimony is not warranted.

II. Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs Against Sunita

Sunita contends on appeal that the arbitrators exceeded their powers in awarding attorney fees and costs against her because the arbitrators were never asked to decide any claims or defenses with respect to her as an individual. She seeks reversal of that part of the judgment confirming the arbitration award against her. The eBAS parties respond that Sunita has waived this argument by failing to raise it at any time prior to oral argument on their petition to confirm the final award. In any event, according to the eBAS parties, the arbitrators did not exceed their powers in awarding fees and costs against Sunita because she was both a named party in the underlying lawsuits and an active participant in the arbitration proceedings.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(4), a court shall vacate an arbitration award if it determines that "[t]he arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted."

With respect to the issue of waiver, the eBAS parties assert that Sunita has "doubly waived" her claim because she failed to raise it twice: during post-arbitration proceedings, and again in her written response to their petition to confirm the final award as a judgment.

It is clear from the final award itself, which addressed the post-arbitration motions of the Gupta parties in great detail, that Sunita did not make any argument concerning the scope of the arbitrators‟ authority or the award against her at that time. Likewise, her written response to the petition to confirm the final award, which included a specific request to vacate it on two separate grounds, did not mention the present claim. It was not until oral argument at the hearing on the petition to confirm the award that her attorney first raised the issue. Petitioners‟ counsel objected and responded to the merits by stating: "The alleged error in awarding attorneys‟ fees against Sunita Gupta were not raised in response to the petition that was filed so we did not have an opportunity to respond in writing to you. I can assure you that the reason attorneys‟ fees were awarded against Sunita Gupta was because she brought a claim under the Kuber, LLC agreement to determine that the Sainis did not have an ownership interest in Kuber, LLC. That claim was determined adversely against her, as is obvious. And because there was a prevailing party provision in the LLC agreement, that is why attorneys‟ fees were properly assessed against her for bringing that non-meritorious claim on which she lost. I understand . . . that‟s not in the papers before you, but then this claim was just made before you right now." Petitioner‟s counsel did not request a continuance. The trial court confirmed the final award without directly addressing the appropriateness of the fees and costs assessed against Sunita or her failure to raise the issue earlier.

Sunita‟s claim that the arbitrators exceeded their authority is one of the statutory grounds for vacatur of the award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(4) [arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted]. Alternatively, a party may seek correction of the award on the same ground, if that can be done without affecting the merits of the decision. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.6, subd. (b).)

Sunita waived her claim by failing to raise it before the panel during post-arbitration hearings. Determinations of arbitrability, that is, whether an arbitrator exceeded his or her authority by deciding a particular issue, are properly determined in the first instance by the arbitrators, not a court of law. (Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corporation (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 372 [doubts as to meaning or extent of arbitration agreement and determination of what issues are necessary to ultimate decision was for arbitrators and not court to resolve].) Giving substantial deference to the arbitrators‟ own assessments of their contractual authority is consistent with the general rule of arbitral finality. (Id. at p. 373.) The parties here expressly stipulated to the arbitration of all disputes between them, as delimited by their more specific list of claims and defenses to be decided by the arbitrators. The panel was in the best position to determine whether the parties meant by their submissions to exclude Sunita from all liability. Her failure to raise the issue during post-arbitration proceedings deprived the panel of that opportunity and resulted in a waiver of her claim. (See, e.g., Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9-10 [failure to raise claim regarding legality of fee-splitting provision waived the claim for future judicial review; question was for arbitrator in the first instance].)

In addition, Sunita‟s failure to include the claim in her written response did not comply with the procedural requirements for correcting arbitration awards and left the opposing parties without a meaningful opportunity to respond. A petition to correct or vacate an award, or a response requesting such relief, must set forth the grounds on which the request of such relief is based. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.8.)

Given the strong public policy favoring arbitration, and the extremely narrow statutory grounds for review, Sunita‟s failure to raise the issue during post-arbitration proceedings and her belated verbal request to correct the award on the ground that the arbitrators exceeded their authority was insufficient to preserve her claim for appellate review.

Even if she had not waived her claim, there is no basis on this record to reverse the judgment awarding fees and costs against Sunita. "An appellate court reviews a determination of whether an arbitrator has exceeded his or her powers de novo, but displays substantial deference towards the arbitrator‟s determination of his or her contractual authority. [Citations.] All reasonable inferences must be drawn in support of the award. [Citation.]" (Jones v. Humanscale Corporation [protected] Cal.App.4th 401, 408; accord, Roehl v. Ritchie [protected] Cal.App.4th 338, 347.) "Absent an express and unambiguous limitation in the contract or the submission to arbitration, an arbitrator has the authority to find the facts, interpret the contract, and award any relief rationally related to his or her factual findings and contractual interpretation. [Citations.]" (Gueyffier v. Ann Summers, Ltd. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1179, 1182.)

Sunita was an owner of Kuber ~(CT 24)~ and a plaintiff in two of the underlying lawsuits: Sunita Gupta v. Gurinder Saini (Alameda Co. Superior Court Case No. RG06257283) and Dinesh Gupta, et al. v. eBusiness Application Solutions, Inc., et al. (Alameda Co. Superior Court Case No. RGO5242211).*fn3 The latter lawsuit was an action on the Kuber operating agreement and sought attorney fees according to one of its provisions. The parties agreed to submit all of their existing disputes to binding arbitration, including the question of whether Ravinder and Gurinder had acquired an ownership interest in Kuber. The list of claims and defenses ultimately submitted for decision did not mention Sunita‟s individual claims and defenses specifically, but neither did it exclude them. We note that the disputes between Kuber and Accurate were expressly bifurcated for later decision, which indicates the parties were fully capable of excluding from the panel‟s purview those issues they did not wish to have decided. Sunita appeared through counsel as a party to the arbitration and was personally present at the post-arbitration motion for reconsideration, which was the only proceeding that was fully reported. Thus it does not appear that the parties intended to absolve her of all liability by omitting her name from the list of claims and defenses submitted for decision. The arbitrators based their award of fees and costs against Sunita on their finding that Ravinder and Gurinder had prevailed "on their claims against the Guptas [Dinesh and Sunita], and on the defenses of any claims brought against them by the Guptas and are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys[] fees and costs . . . ." We therefore conclude that the arbitrators had the authority to determine the issue of liability for attorney fees and to include Sunita in that determination.

III. Motion for Sanctions

Respondents have filed motion for sanctions, contending that Sunita‟s appeal was frivolous and dilatory.

"Code of Civil Procedure section 907 provides that "When it appears to the reviewing court that the appeal was frivolous or taken solely for delay, it may add to the costs on appeal such damages as may be just.‟ Rule 26(a) of the California Rules of Court similarly provides that "[I]f an appeal is frivolous or taken solely for the purpose of delay . . . the reviewing court may impose upon offending attorneys or parties such penalties, including the withholding or imposing of costs, as the circumstances of the case and the discouragement of like conduct in the future may require.‟ " An appeal is frivolous "only when it is prosecuted for an improper motive-to harass the respondent or delay the effect of an adverse judgment-or . . . when any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and completely without merit." (Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 31, citing In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650.) "An appeal that is simply without merit is not be definition frivolous and should not incur sanctions." (In re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 650.)

Although we have found Sunita‟s appeal to be without merit, we do not consider it frivolous. There is no evidence that it was brought in bad faith. Given the amount of the award against her and the relative lack of clarity caused by the omission of her name from the list of issues to be decided by the arbitrators, it cannot be said that any reasonable attorney would agree that this appeal should not have been pursued. Respondents have not shown that it was taken solely for purposes of delay because the identical argument was raised (albeit belatedly) in the trial court at the hearing on the petition to confirm the arbitration arward. Therefore, the motion for sanctions is denied.

DISPOSITION

For the reasons stated above, the judgment is affirmed. The motion of the eBAS parties for sanctions against Sunita is denied. Each party is to bear their own costs of appeal.

WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.

The companies owned by dinesh gupta are all fraud... he is a complete money making guy and he has one center running in chandigarh INDIA where he doesnot even give salaries to his employees.

Stay away from Companies like Agile Informaics, 4D Technology Solutions, Kuber Infotech and Train Pro

The company is a Fraud. Dinesh Gupta used to work for a company named ebas which used to Fake resumes and do training .He was kicked out of the company when he started side swiping the company

Ebas/Aveeva

Seems like someone is pissed at their own doing. Looks like you have lots of time in your hands to write such things...

My advice, GO GET A LIFE!