1 arbp1319.10.doc ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1319 OF 2010 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Ltd. .. Petitioner versus Rasiklal Vershi Savla & Anr. .. Respondents. Ms. Ratna Jaiswal, advocate for petitioner. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1 The Petitioner had extended certain facilities to the respondents. They were pursuant to personal loan sought by the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 is the guarantor. There is default committed by the Respondent No.1. As per the account maintained in the ordinary course of business by the Petitioner, sum of Rs.17,32,375/- is due and payable. The Petitioner had send demand notice but there was no response. 2 On the earlier occasion, this Petition was placed for hearing and final disposal at admission stage and on 31st January, 2 arbp1319.10.doc 2011 the Respondent’s advocate appeared and sought time. There is no affidavit in reply. The Respondents and their advocates are absent despite notice. None of the statements in the Petition are denied or disputed. There are two immovable properties, which may be disposed of and ultimately if the Arbitrator renders award in favour of the Petitioner, nothing would be available to execute or for enforcement of the same. 3. For all these reasons, I find that prima facie case is made out. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioner and they would suffer irreparable loss and injury. This Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). There will be no order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)