1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 177 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Anna Laxman Kurhade & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Ms. Disha Karambar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. .... CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 30th November, 2009. P.C.- 1. The petition has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), as the respondents committed various defaults in due payment of installments. Though served thrice, none appeared for the respondents. Affidavit of service shows that the respondents are avoiding service and also avoid to surrender the vehicle though already ordered in view of the prayer clause (a). 2. The averments remained uncontraverted with regard to the due payments/due installments. 2 3. The respondents have using the vehicle without making due payments as referred above. In view of this, as the case is made out and as all elements are available to grant ad-interim relief/measure as contemplated under Order 40, Rule 1 & 2 and Order 40, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’), I am inclined to confirm prayer clause (a) by deleting bracket now. 4. Considering the affidavits on record, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to take police protection, if necessary, for execution of order in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) except bracketed portion. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)