1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 441 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. .... Petitioner vs 1 Dolphin Travels 2 VarudhaUmesh Valse 3 Namdeo Baburao Benake .... Respondents Mr. Rahul Mehta with Mr.Nikhil Mehta i/b. Disha Karambar for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 10th September, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) for interim protection or to secure the due amount which the respondents admittedly not paid till this date. 2 The respondents refused to accept the private as well as the court notice. The affidavit of service is filed accordingly on record. 3 The averments with regard to non-payment/due payment remained uncontroverted. The respondents have been using the said vehicle without due payments. Therefore, all ingredients as required under Order 40 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure are available in the present case. 2 4 Considering the averments made and in view of above, I am inclined to allow this petition in terms of prayer (a). 5 However, the liberty is granted to the respondents to settle the matter and/or furnish security to the satisfaction of the petitioner. 6 The liberty is also granted to the respondents to raise appropriate pleas/defences before the Arbitral Tribunal if so constituted. 7 The liberty is also granted to the petitioner to apply for police protection only if necessary. 8 The Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (g) with liberty. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)