1 skt/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 303 OF 2009 TATA Securities Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Mukesh Giridhar Konde ...Respondent. Mr. P.A. Kabadi i/by Doijode Associates for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 25TH JUNE, 2009. P.C.- 1. The petitioner has moved this Section 9 petition of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 (for short “The Act”) to secure the amount of Rs.66,26,510.82/-(Rupees Sixty six lakhs twenty six thousand five hundred ten and Paise eighty two only) and also prayed alternatively to attach the immovable property owned by the respondents. 2. None appeared for the respondent though served twice. As per Court’s service report on the envelope remark is “Unclaim RTS”. 3. On 26th March 2009, considering the averments made and as a prima facie case is made out, this Court has granted protection. The 2 paragraph nos. 1 & 2 of the Order dated 26th March 2009 reads as under : “(i) Till further orders respondent is hereby restrained from selling, alienating, transferring, encumbering or creating third party rights or interest or part with the possession in regard to the flat No. 303, more particularly described in prayer clause (c). (ii) In addition to that the respondent is directed to file affidavit before the next date stating therein the movable and immovable assets and the probable valuation as per the calculation.” 4. On 29th April 2009, as respondents failed to appear and to give one more opportunity, this Court has issued notice for final disposal and therefore the matter is listed today for final disposal. 5. None appeared for respondents again. 6. The petitioner has filed further affidavit-in-support dated 25th June 2009 to demonstrate the conduct and approach of the respondent apart from avoiding service. He has filed an ad-interim order passed by Whole Time Member, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The relevant part of the affidavit is as under : “.......By an ad-interim ex-parte Order dated 5th June 2009 SEBI has held that the conduct of the Respondent and 5 other persons named therein is prima facie faudulent, manipulative, 3 detrimental to the genuine investor and would adversely affect the integrity of the securities market and therefore in violation of Regulations 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(g) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market)Regulations, 2003. ....... By the said Order dated 5th June 2009 the Respondent, amongst others, has been restrained from accessing the securities market and further prohibited from buying, selling or dealing in securities market, directly or indirectly, till further orders. Further, BSE has been directed to withhold the payout of 11th February 2009 of Ms. Hetal Patel and Mr. Chetan Shah in a separate escrow account, till further orders.........” Even otherwise, the averment so made, in the present petition against the respondent remained uncontraverted. There is an arbitration clause in the Agreement. The petitioner has already invoked that clause and tribunal has been constituted accordingly. 7. The Apex Court in Adhunik Steels Ltd. V/s. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd. in (2007) 7 S.C.C. 125) has observed that while granting interim protection/order under Section 9 of the Act. The basic principles of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as, The Specific Relief Act, 1962 need to be considered. In the present facts and circumstances, in my view, all ingredients are available for granting relief as prayed to secure the amount involved. 4 8. Having once observed above, I am inclined to grant relief in following words : “The respondent is directed to deposit the sum of Rs.66,26,510.82/- (Rupees Sixty six lakhs twenty six thousand five hundred ten and Paise eighty two only) and/or secure the said amount in this Court within 8 weeks.” However, pending the said deposit or security, I am inclined to grant prayer clause (a) & (b)(i) also. This Court by an interim order has already granted prayer clause (c) which is to continue till he deposit/secure in terms of prayer clause (a) and same shall continue for four weeks thereafter. However, liberty is granted to respondents to settle the matter. Having once granted, the above relief and as the case is made out by the petitioner, in my view there is nothing survive in this petition. The petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)