1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (Lodging) NO. 1744 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. 1 Vayakara Puthanveetil Chandran & ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Rahul Mehta with Mr.Nikhil Mehta i/b. Ms.Disha Karambar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 28th January, 2010. P.C.- 1 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act), as the respondents failed to make payments as per the agreement of loan, having arbitration clause. 2 None appeared for the respondents, though service twice. An affidavit of service is placed on record. The respondents have unclaimed the private, as well as, the Court notice. The averments, therefore, so made with regard to the due payment as well as apprehension so raised remained uncontroverted. The respondents have been utilising the subject loan without due payments. Therefore, all the elements as required under Section 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, CPC) are available. 2 3 This Court has already granted prayer clause (c). Now, in view of this, I am inclined to confirm the prayer clause (c) already granted. 4 However, liberty is granted to the respondents to settle the matter and/or furnish the security to the extent of amount involved. 5 I do not deny the right of the respondents to raise plea or defence before the Arbitral Tribunal, if so constituted. 6 The Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer (c), with liberty. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)