IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.188 OF 2008 Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Bhavesh Ratilal Shah .. Respondent Mr.Chaitanya Gupte i/by Mohit Gadkari & Co for the petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 28th November 2008. : 28th November 2008. : 28th November 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He states that the respondent has been duly served and affidavit of service has been filed. He invited my attention to order dated 08th July 2008 by which ad-interim relief has been granted in terms of prayer clause (b). 2. The petitioner granted loan to the respondent for purchasing a vehicle. Various documents such as promissory note, power of attorney and other documents were executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner. The vehicle acquired by the respondent was hypothecated in favour of the petitioner by way of security for repayment of the loan granted to the respondent. The respondent had agreed to repay the loan 2 with interest by 23 equated monthly instalments. 3. The respondent committed default and therefore notice dated 03rd March 2008 was issued by the petitioner for recalling the entire amount payable under the loan. The respondent had issued post dated cheques in favour of the petitioner towards the equated monthly instalments. The case of the petitioner is that some of the cheques issued by the respondent were dishonoured and the respondent failed to pay equated monthly instalments as per the loan agreement. The petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement as disclosed in the averments made in the petition. The apprehension expressed in the petitioner is that the respondent may dispose of the vehicle thereby destroying the security available to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is pressing for grant of relief in terms of prayer clause (a). 4. There is no reply filed to the petition by the respondent. The averments made in the petition have not been controverted by the respondent. The petitioner is willing to proceed with the arbitration. 5. Though a case is made out for grant of prayer clause (a), it will be the responsibility of the 3 petitioner to locate the vehicle and to communicate to the receiver in writing the details of whereabouts of the vehicle. Unless the details are supplied by the petitioner, the receiver will not implement the order passed by this Court. 6. Hence, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order: (i) The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (ii) It is for the petitioner to locate the vehicle in question and to supply details about the whereabouts of the said vehicle to the court receiver by communication in writing. It is made clear that receiver will act upon this order and implement the same only after receiving the communication to that effect issued by the petitioner. (iii) The parties and Court Receiver to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. 4 (A.S.Oka,J)