1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 242 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Shankar Vitthal Khurade & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/by Disha Karambar for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 19th JUNE, 2009. P.C.- 1. None appeared, though duly served, for respondent no. 1 who is a Borrower and respondent no. 2 is the Guarantor. 2. Considering the averments made and as there is a clear default of non making payment and as recorded in the Order dated 21st April 2009 whereby this Court has granted prayer clause (a) except bracketed portion. 3. The respondents are admittedly in default. So far as the SKT/- 2 averments as stand today there is no denial to this averment. Considering the transaction between the parties and the fact that the respondents are using the vehicle without making the due payment, and as apprehension is made out, it is a case to grant the prayer clause (a) as prayed even by deleting bracketed portion. The statement is made that respondents are not cooperating and threatening to the Officers of the petitioners. Therefore, the Receiver also could not take the physical possession of the vehicle. In view of this, as submitted, I am inclined to observe that the Receiver to take police help to take physical possession of the vehicle if necessary. 4. Therefore, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). However, liberty is granted to respondents to furnish the security to the extent of amount to avoid the implementation of the prayer clause (a). The liberty is also granted to respondents to settle the matter pending the arbitration. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) SKT/-