1 ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.302 OF 2009 L & T Finance Limited. ...Petitioner. Vs. Mr. Vasim Badshah Shaikh & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms. Shakuntala Joshi i/by S.I. Joshi & Co. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 22ND JUNE, 2009. P.C.- 1. The Petitioner, a finance company, has invoked Section 9 under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”), as the Respondents though served with the demand notice, not paid the installment amount/ balance amount as described in the particulars of the claim. None appeared though served by a private notice. 2. The Court, therefore, by an order dated 23rd April, 2009 issued a notice and granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c). The affidavit of service is placed on record. None appeared for the Respondents again. They have even refused to accept the private notice. There is no response even to the Court notice. No response from the borrowers also, though address of all the Respondents is same. 2 3. In view of this, as there is no denial to the averments so raised and as they are admittedly using the vehicle without making due payments and as case is made out, to protect the subject matter of the dispute, I am inclined to grant prayer clause (a). 4. Once the Prayer clause (a) is granted, in my view, there is nothing survives in this Petition. The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The liberty is granted to the Respondents to furnish the security to the extent of amount claimed/ involved and or get the matter settled with the Petitioner. 5. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with liberty. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)