1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 495 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. .... Petitioner vs Chetan Magan Valvi & 2 ors. .... Respondents Mr.Rahul Mehta i/b. Disha Karambhar for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 8th October, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act). Today none present for the respondents, though served. In fact, the matter was adjourned for settlement, but in vein. 2 There is no denial or reply to the liability as well as to the averments so raised in the petition. The respondents are using the vehicle without due payment. 3 In view of this, as all elements as contemplated under Order 40, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) have been made, I am inclined to grant prayer (a) and confirm prayer (g) already granted. 4 However, the liberty is granted to the respondents to settle the matter and/or furnish the security to the satisfaction of the petitioner. 5 I do not deny the right of the respondents to raise appropriate pleas or 2 defences before the Arbitral Tribunal, if so constituted. 6 The petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (g) with liberty. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)