1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.728 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Narendra M. Sakhakar ...Respondent. Mr.Chinmay Gupte i/b. Mohit Gadkari & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms.Shaila A. Pandey for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 10th December, 2009. P.C.- 1 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) on 20.08.2009 and made specific averments about persistent defaults and the balance amount of Rs. 3,38,824.61. 2 The respondent appeared and filed reply and pointed out that the instalments were re-scheduled and a letter was accordingly exchanged for the month of March to May 2009. The statement is also made in the affidavit that they are making the payment regularly. The last instalment on record is of dated November 2009. 3 The statement is made that instalment for December, 2009 is also paid. 2 4 The petitioner sought attachment/injunction in respect of the property which is not owned by the respondent. 5 Considering this affidavit in reply and undisputed position on record, I see the present petition as filed is nothing but a clear case of negligence and harassment to the respondent. The petitioner is entitled to take steps and/or file petition in case of defaults but not a case like this where the respondents who are paying instalments regularly. In my view, the financial institution like the petitioner should not take such petition/action for marginal defaults of one or two defaults here or there, in view of present commercial market position. 6 Resultantly, I am inclined to dismiss this petition with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondents within four weeks from today. Injunction order already granted stands vacated. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)