1 arbp934.09.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 934 OF 2009 L & T Finance Ltd. ....Petitioner. Vs. Sai Baba Construction & Anr. ....Respondents. Ms. Shakuntala Joshi i/by M/s. S.I. Joshi for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.: The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act). There is a consistent default in making the payment, though agreed. The Respondents, however, still using the equipments without due payment till this date. The averments made in the Petition, remained uncontroverted. This Court on 14 th December, 2009, after considering the same, has appointed the Court Receiver. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner makes statement that the Court Receiver could not take possession as the Respondents expressed willingness to settle the matter. The matter was adjourned from time to time for settlement, 2 arbp934.09.sxw ssm but in vain. The Respondents by one or the other reason postponing the execution of the order already passed. 2 In view of above and considering the averments so made as contemplated under Section 9 of the Act, and as the case is made out, I am inclined to allow this Petition in terms of prayer clauses (a-i), (b) and (e). Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs. 3 It is made clear that the earlier order dated 14 th December, 2009 is also confirmed. However, the liberty is granted to the Respondents to settle the matter, if any. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)