1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 196 OF 2009 Tata Captial Limited Company. .. Petitioner Vs. Deepark Charandas Bhatia ...Respondent. Mr.Rahul Mehta with Mr.Nikhil Mehta for the Petitioner. Respondent present in person. Mrs.Jostna Bhatia, wife of Respondent present in person. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 7th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.- The petitioner has invoked section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) as Respondent defaulted in making payment towards the personal loan taken from the petitioner. 2. On 23rd April, 2009 this court had passed order of issue notice returnable on 7th May, 2009. On 11th June, 2009, Respondents appeared in person. He make statement that he deposited 1,09,000/- before 20th June, 2009 with the petitioner’s office. Rule made returnable on 24th June, 2009. As recorded on 24th June, 2009 the Respondents failed to deposit the said amount. The Respondents wife appeared in person and seeks time. The 2 court has granted time till 7th August, 2009 as a last chance. On 7th August, 2009 the statement is recorded that parties are exploring the possibility of settlement. The Respondents who was present in the court submitted to deposit a cheque of Rs.15,000/- to the Petitioner, but in vain and the matter again listed and the cheque of Rs.15,000/- was deposited also bounced. The Respondents by this affidavit specifically availed that the property as referred in the petition is not owned by him. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in view of this makes statement that at least amounts may be secured. 3. Considering the fact that there is no serious dispute about the default and the conduct of the Respondents. I am inclined to order that with reference to involve solvent security to the extent of Rs.11,00,000/- to be furnished within eight weeks. This is only on the foundation and to give one more chance to the Respondents to settle the matter. I do not denying the right of the Respondents to context and to agitate the issue before the Arbitrator Tribunal as constituted. It is made clear that this order shall continue till the execution of award, if any passed by the Arbitrator Tribunal. 4. The petition is allowed accordingly. No cost. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)