1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 335 OF 2009 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Sunil Sitaram Satre & Anr. ...Respondents. Ms. Gunjan Shah i/by Ms. Priya Crasto for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 4th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act). Though served twice, including the Court notice, none appeared for the Respondents. 2 The Petitioner is a non-banking financial company. The Respondents have defaulted nearly 37 installments amounting to Rs.786095/-. The contract is already matured. The Respondents are not responded to the demand notice issued by the Petitioner, nor to the notice issued by this Court, till this date. 3 The averments, therefore so made, remained uncontroverted. Thus, in my view, a sufficient case is made out to grant prayer for appointment of 2 Court Receiver as well as the injunction to protect and secure the amount as claimed, including the vehicles which the Respondents have been using without making the payment. 4 In view of this, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c) in full, by deleting the bracketed portion and prayer clause (d). 5 However, the liberty is granted to the Respondents to settle the matter and/ or to furnish the security or secure the amount. I do not deny, the right of the Respondents to contest the proceeding, if initiated, before the Arbitral Tribunal. 6 The Petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c) in full and (d), with liberty. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)