1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.178 OF 2010 Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd .. Petitioner. -versus Mr. Ashish Joshi and anr .. Respondents. Ms. Sarika Karnik i/b S. I. Joshi & Co. for the petitioner. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: 12th March, 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioner has invoked section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, l996 (for short called as “the Act”), as pursuance to the arbitration agreement between the parties, respondents defaulted in making payments since 2007. however, the respondents are enjoying the said vehicle without due payments. The contract itself is now matured on l8.3.2009. 2. Though served, even by Court notice, none appears for the respondents. The averments, therefore, so made in the petition remained uncontroverted. 3.Therefore, considering the scope and purpose of section 9 petition and as all ingredients are available in favour of the petitioner to pass order as prayed, to secure the amount, I am 2 inclined to grant the prayer clause (a) except bracket portion keeping all the points open. This Court has already granted prayer(e). However, the petitioner shall pay the requisite charges/fees of the Court Receiver as per rules. 4. Having once granted the prayers (a) and (e) I think there is nothing survives in the petition, the petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (e). 5. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to settle and/or to furnish the security to this amount. All points are kept open. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner, if case is made out, for police assistance. 6. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)