1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO.62 OF 2009 Mahendra & Mahdenra Finance .. Petitioner V/s. Pravin Trikambai Mukwana & Ors. .. Respondents Mrs.Priya Crasto for the Petitioner. Mr.R.P.Ojha with Mr.H.P.Pandy for Respondent No.1. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2009 P.C.: The Petitioner has invoked section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred as the Act, for short) as Respondents have not paid the installments due. Now as many as 34 installments are outstanding. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents makes statement that the vehicle was stolen. There is no denial to the 2 liability. Having once entered into such commercial contract, the parties are bound to comply with the same. Whether the vehicle was stolen or not is the matter of investigation. The petitioner has nothing, to do basically in view of the contract in question. 3. In view of the above, as the averments made in the petition remained uncontrovered basically of liability, as well as, the fact that the vehicle is not yet traceable, in my view, petitioner has made out a prima facie case. All elements as contemplated under order XL Rule 1 and order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code are available. 4. Resultantly, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘b’ and ‘c’ with liberty. However, show cause notice already issued by this court and the proceeding arising out of the same are kept pending. 5. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)