Arbpl249.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 249 OF 2010 Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Mr. Vijay A. Kamble & Anr. ...Respondents. Ms. Sarika Karnik i/by M/s. S.I. Joshi & Co. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 11TH MARCH, 2010. P.C.- 1 The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act), as pursuance to the arbitration agreement between the parties, the Respondents defaulted in making payment. However, the Respondents are enjoying the said vehicle without due payments. 2 Though served, even by Court notice, none appears for the Respondents. The averments, therefore, so made in the Petition remained un-controverted. 3 Therefore, considering the scope and purpose of Section 9 Petition and as all the ingredients are available in favour of the Petitioner to pass Arbpl249.10 2 order as prayed, to secure the amount, I am inclined to grant prayer clause (a) except bracketed portion. This Court has already granted prayer clause (e). The Petitioner, however, liable to pay the requisite charges of the receiver. 4 Having once granted prayers (a) and (e), I think, there is nothing survives in the Petition, the Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (e). All the points are kept open for both the parties. 5 However, liberty is granted to the Respondents to settle and/or to furnish the security to this amount. Liberty is also granted to the Petitioner, to apply, if case is made out, for police assistance. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)