IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.77 OF 2009. ARBITRATION PETITION NO.77 OF 2009. ARBITRATION PETITION NO.77 OF 2009. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited ..Petitioner versus Ms.Jaspreet Kaur Jarnal Singh Khakh & Another ..Respondents Mr.Nikhi Mehta a/w. Disha Karambar for the petitioners. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 26th February, 2009. DATED : 26th February, 2009. DATED : 26th February, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Mehta for the petitioner. None for the respondents. 2. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) is already granted. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. Petition is taken up for hearing. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners. Perused record. Counsel for the petitioners contended that Receiver should be appointed and Receiver should be directed to sell the vehicle and the sale proceeds be paid over to the petitioners. He further submitted that in the alternative the respondent be directed to furnish solvent surety to the tune of Rs.8,96,990/- along -2- with interest on the principal amount, namely Rs.7,97,567/-. 3. Having considered the rival contentions, right now I am not inclined to appoint Receiver and direct the Receiver to sell the said vehicle. This is because the claim of the petitioner is yet to be granted and decreed. It is quite likely that the claim of the petitioner may not sustain before the Arbitrator and the respondents may suceed. Now, before the claim is granted, if the vehicle is sold, the respondent may lose his valuable rights qua the vehicle. Even otherwise appointment of the Court Receiver will be mere formality when we do not now where the said vehicle is at present and how to keep control over the said vehicle by the Receiver. In my view, this is not a case where the Receiver should be appointed. To that extent request will have to be rejected. 4. The liability alleged against the respondent is Rs.8,96,990/-. It would be proper if the respondent is directed to furnish a solvent surety to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- being the amount mentioned in the particulars of claim. That, in my view, will put the respondent to terms. -3- For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following Order: ORDER . There shall be order of injunction in terms of prayer clause (b). . In addition to the above relief in terms of prayer clause (b), respondent is directed to furnish security in the sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the satisfaction of Prothonotary & Senior Master. This be done by the respondent within four weeks from the service of the Order upon the respondent. Petitioners to serve upon the respondent the authenticated copy of this Order. . Petition stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)