1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.189 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Sanjeet Satish Naik & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms. Disha Karmabar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 13TH JULY, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) as the Respondents though agreed, not paid the regular payment but using the vehicles. This Court on 26th March, 2009, therefore, granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (g). On 4th May, 2009, as none appeared, this Court appointed the Court Receiver in terms of prayer clause (a) except bracketed portion. On 22nd June, 2009 the Respondents appeared in person and expressed their difficulties in view of recession and also for the fact that the other parties have cancelled/terminated their contract, they are unable utilize the said vehicle. This Court has permitted them to apply for settlement and to submit their proposal in writing. On 6th July, 2009 none appeared for the Respondent and therefore, as a last chance matter was adjourned for today. 2 2 Today, none appeared for the Respondent again. The proposal so given by the Respondents on 30th June, 2009 has been rejected on the same day, as found to be not in constructive and financial supported. It means, inspite of this, none appeared for the Respondent, though opportunity was given to them to settle the matter. Therefore, the averments so made in the Petition remained uncontroverted and as recorded already, the Respondents are defaulters, I see the case is made out for appointment of Court Receiver as prayed. Therefore, I am inclined to grant prayer clause (a) as prayed by deleting the bracket as ordered. Having once granted prayer clause (a), I see there is nothing survives in this Petition, however, liberty is granted to the Respondents to approach and settle the matter and or furnish the security to the extent of amount involved. The liberty is also granted to take appropriate pleas or defences before the Arbitral Tribunal, if any. 3 Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)