ndm 1 arbpl.1019.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1019 OF 2009 (ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 962 OF 2009) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ... PETITIONER Vs. Ghanshyambhai Mulibhai Sabhani (Patel) & anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------------- Mr. Rahul Mehta with Disha Karambar for Petitioner. -------------- CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 20 th November, 2009. P.C. 1 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act). Today none present for the respondents, though served. In fact, the matter was adjourned for settlement, but in vein. 2 There is no denial or reply to the liability as well as to the averments so raised in the petition. The respondents are using the vehicle without due payment. 3 In view of this, as all elements as contemplated under Order 40, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) have been made, I am inclined to grant prayer (a) and confirm prayer (g) already granted. ndm 2 arbpl.1019.09.sxw 4 However, the liberty is granted to the respondents to settle the matter and/or furnish the security to the satisfaction of the petitioner. 5 I do not deny the right of the respondents to raise appropriate pleas or defences before the Arbitral Tribunal, if so constituted. The liberty is also granted to respondents to apply for appropriate order. 6 The petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (g) to the extent of vehicle only. [ ANOOP V. MOHTA, J ]