( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION USJ ARBITRATION NO.224 OF 2009 ARBITRATION NO.224 OF 2009 ARBITRATION NO.224 OF 2009 Tata Capital Ltd. ..Petitioners V/s. Suhrit Services Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents ...... Mr.F.Pooniwala i/by Y.R.Shah for the petitioners ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 1st April, 2009 DATED : 1st April, 2009 DATED : 1st April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Affidavit of service filed in regard to all the respondents. The petitioners have advanced loan to respondent No.1 for purchase of vehicles. The respondent No.2 and 3 are guarantors. 2. According to the petitioners, respondents are in default to the tune of Rs.77,93,044/- as of today till filing of this petition i.e. in the month of ( 2 ) March, 2009. 3. Respondent No.1 have entered into the correspondence with the petitioners, which is annexed to the petition and reading of the same would go to show that at some point of time one Mr. Sanjay Pradhan had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs by November, 2008. Statement made across the bar is also in the petition that monies are outstanding. All this will go to show that the respondents have not complied with the monetary obligations. 4. Petitioners have shown the arbitration clause and arbitrator is appointed and the name of the arbitrator is communicated to the respondents. Though arbitrator has not formally taken charge of the matter, which I am sure shall be done in near future. Counsel for the petitioners pressed for reliefs in terms of the petition except prayer clause (f) and (g). In view of the above, relief in terms of prayer clause (f) and (g) need not be granted at this stage. 5. In so far as the other reliefs are concerned, after having considered the point in question and submissions, in my view, it would be proper if respondents jointly or severally are directed to furnish Bank Guarantee to the petitioners to the ( 3 ) satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master to the tune of Rs.77,93,044/- on or before 27th April, 2009 so that the substantial amount will be secured. It is also necessary to direct the respondents to disclose the movable and immovable assets held by them so that the petitioners can make note of that fact and proceed further to attach the movable and immovable assets to any of the respondents if respondents or any of them fail to furnish bank guarantee as mentioned in the earlier part of the order. 6. Submission of Counsel for the petitioners that the sum of Rs.49,50,000/- lying in the bank account of respondent No.1 with HDFC Bank be seized and invested in Government Securities cannot be granted. The similar request that the account be seized and the respondent No.1 be prohibited from paying amount except making payment to the petitioner also cannot be granted. In my view, these two reliefs sought by the petitioners would result in financial imbalance in the account of the respondent No.1 because today the Court does not know whether the said account is in operation. Even if the said account is in operation, still seizing the particular amount from a running bank account would not be proper as one does not know the other commitments of respondent No.1. If such an order is passed that may result complications and ( 4 ) further litigation between petitioner and respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 and other creditors or other persons to whom monies are to be paid by respondent No.1. In my view, the interest of the petitioners can be secured by directing the respondents to furnish bank guarantee and furnish statement as mentioned aforesaid. To that extent, relief in terms of prayer clause (d) and (e) cannot be granted. 7. So far as the appointment of Receiver is concerned, right now the actual vehicles which could be taken charge by which Receiver cannot be conveniently identified and therefore as of today the prayer in terms of prayer clause (a) also cannot be granted. Ofcourse, it does not mean that petitioners are prohibited from applying for such a relief in future before the arbitrator. The relief in terms of prayer Clause (b) can be granted by way of ad-interim order and that will have to be continued till disposal of the petition. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I pass following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . Reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (d) ( 5 ) and (e) is refused at this juncture. . Liberty is granted to the petitioners to apply for relief in terms of prayer clauses (a), (f) and (g) in future before the learned Arbitrator. Views expressed as of today in so far as these prayer clauses were on the basis of the record, which is before the Court as of today. . There shall be an interim order in terms of prayer clause (b). . In addition to the above, so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, respondents jointly or severally are directed to furnish a bank guarantee in favour of the petitioners to the tune of Rs.77,93,044/- of any nationalized bank to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. This shall be done on or before 29th April, 2009. . So far as relief in terms of prayer clause (g) the respondents are directed to furnish statement of movable and immovable assets held by them as of 1st April, 2009. Such statement shall be sent to the learned ( 6 ) Arbitrator and a copy of the same shall be furnished to the petitioners. If the respondents jointly or severally fail to furnish bank guarantee on or before 29th April, 2009, the petitioner is free to move the learned arbitrator for seeking order as regards attachment of movable and immovable assets of any of the respondents to cover the amounts which are directed to be secured by the bank guarantee. . Petition stands disposed of in above terms. . Respondents to pay the petitioners costs of this petition. Petitioner to serve an authenticated copy of this order upon all the respondents by R.P.A.D. or by hand delivery. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)