1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO.443 OF 2009 L & T Finance Ltd. .... Petitioner vs Mr.Ramadhan Ratha Aade & anr. .... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Anubhavne i/b. S.I. Joshi & Co. for the petitioner. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 30th September, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard finally. 2 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) as the respondents, inspite of agreement, failed to make the payment, based upon the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement. The respondents have been using the said vehicle without any due payment. The notices have been sent on the address available on the record. The Guarantor refused the same. The endorsement on the envelope of the borrower is “Left/Gone out of Station”. 3 The petitioner has already served the private notice. 4 None appeared for respondents. Therefore, the averments so raised remained uncontroverted referring to the due instalment as well as apprehension so expressed. 5 As all the elements as contemplated under Order 40, Rule 1 of Code of Civil 2 Procedure (CPC) read with Section 9 of the Act are available, at this stage, I am inclined to grant the Petition in terms of prayer (a-i) except bracketed portion and prayer (d) which is already granted, also confirmed. 6 Resultantly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayers (a-i)except bracketed portion and prayer (d). No costs. 7 I do not deny the right of the respondents to contest and/or raise appropriate plea or defence before the Tribunal, if so constituted. The respondents are also at liberty to settle the matter and apply for modification of the order, if any, by furnishing security to the satisfaction of the petitioner. 8 The liberty is also granted to the petitioner to take police protection, if necessary. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)