1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 358 OF 2009 L & T Finance Ltd. .... Petitioner vs Dharmendra Singh Amar Singh & anr. .... Respondents Mrs. S.I. Joshi i/b. S.I. Joshi & Co. for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 7th July, 2009 P.C.: 1 None appears for the defendant again though duly served. No-one appeared when the interim order was passed on 9th June, 2009 in terms of prayer (c). 2 Considering the fact that the averments made in the petition remained uncontroverted and as the respondents failed to make the regular payments of due instalments now aggregating to Rs.72 lacs and odd as on the date of the petition. 3 The respondents are using the three vehicles without making the payments. Therefore, to avoid further damage to the vehicles as well as to avoid further complication and as case is made out, therefore, it is just and convenient to grant prayer (a) as prayed, in addition to prayer (c) which is already granted. This 2 Court has jurisdiction to pass order in view of clauses 17 and 19 of the agreement. 4 However, it is made clear that these are prima facie observation in view of above circumstances. The parties are at liberty to take appropriate pleas and defence before the Arbitral Tribunal, if already constituted. 5 Liberty is also granted to respondents to furnish the security and/or to settle the matter. 6 In view of this, I see there is no reason to keep this matter pending and the petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer (a) with liberty. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)