1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 536 OF 2009 Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Mr. Vikas S. Kamthe & Anr. ...Respondents. Ms. Shakuntala Joshi i/by M/s. S.I. Joshi & Co. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 20th AUGUST, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act), as Respondents though agreed defaulted in making payment and now amount due and payable is to the extent of Rs.10 lacs. The Respondents have been using the said equipment/vehicle without making the payment. The averments so made remained uncontroverted. 2 The Petitioners have served the Respondents twice by private notice. The last known address/ mailing address of the Respondents are as per the agreement between the parties. Section 3 of the Act provides that intimation should be given to the parties on the last known address and /or 2 mailing address. The Petitioner has no other address, except the address mentioned in the Agreement. Therefore, in such circumstances, the communication so sent need to be treated as served, so far as the present proceeding is concerned under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act provides that:- “3.Receipt of Written Communications.- (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties,- (a) any written communication is deemed to have been received if it is delivered to the addressee personally or at his place of business, habitual residence or mailing address, and (b) if none of the places referred to in clause (a) can be found after making a reasonable inquiry, a written communication is deemed to have been received if it is sent to the addressee’s last known place of business, habitual residence or mailing address by registered letter or by any other means which provides a record of the attempt to deliver it.” (2) The communication is deemed to have been received on the day it is so delivered. (3) This section does not apply to written communications in respect of proceedings of any judicial authority.” 4 Even otherwise, as noted, the Petitioners have served Respondents by private notices. Affidavit of service dated 30th June, 2009 and 20th July, 2009 are part of the record. The Petitioner, served the Respondents on the same address by private notice. 5 In view of this, I am of the view that there is a valid service for the 3 purpose of deciding the present petition, as the urgency as shown and as the averments remained uncontroverted and as Respondents are using the said equipments/vehicles without making due payment. 6 In view of all above ingredients, as the balance of convenience, irreparable loss and injury and apart from that the Petitioner looses the value of equipments/vehicles being in use. 7 Resultantly, I am inclined to grant prayer clause (a-i) except the bracketed portion. I see there is nothing survive in this petition. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a-i). The liberty is also granted to the Respondents to settle the matter. I do not deny the rights of the Respondents to raise appropriate pleas before the Arbitral Tribunal, if any. 8 The liberty is also granted to the Petitioner to apply for the Police Assistance, if the case is made out. The Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)