srk 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 605 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Ahmed Rafique Khan ...Respondent. Mr. Prasad Das i/b. Goenka Law Associates for the Petitioner. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :-16th SEPTEMBER, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The petitioner has filed this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for short “the Act”), as respondent failed to deposit any payment. The respondent has been using the vehicles/machineries without due payment. 2 Though served twice, none appeared for the respondent. Affidavit of service is filed on record. The respondent refused to accept the notice. 3 Considering the averments made and as it is remained un- controverted and as contemplated under Order 39 & 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), I am inclined to confirm the interim relief earlier granted on 15th July, 2009 in terms of prayer clause (d) for the item No.1 at Exhibit G. srk 2 4 However, liberty is granted to the respondent to furnish security to the extent of amount in dispute. 5 I do not deny the rights of the defendant to raise their defence before the Arbitration Tribunal if constituted. 6 The petition is therefore accordingly allowed with liberty in terms of prayer clause (d). No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)