skt/- arbp.625.09.sxw ..1.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 625 OF 2009 Reliance Capital Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Nilesh V. Tandel & Anr. ...Respondents. ..... Mr.Omar Khayam Shaikh i/by Vikas Salvi & Assoc. for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ..... CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 13th JANUARY, 2010. P.C.- 1. The petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”), as the respondents made consistent defaults in making the timely payment, though agreed. This Court on 11th September 2009, while admitting the arbitration petition, granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) and the liberty to the respondents to apply for settlement and/or for modification of the order. None appeared for the respondents till this date. The averments made in the petition, therefore, remained uncontraverted. In view of this, as a case is made out, I am inclined skt/- arbp.625.09.sxw ..2.. to confirm the interim order already granted in terms of prayer clause (c) and also grant prayer clause (d) except bracketed portion also. The liberty is granted to the respondents to settle the matter and /or apply for modification of the order. The liberty is also granted to the petitioner to apply for appropriate order. This order to continue till the settlement and/or till the disposal of the arbitration proceeding, if any. 2. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (c) and (d) except the bracketed portion. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)