1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 74 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited ...Petitioner. Vs. Mahesh Baburam Chandra & Anr. ...Respondents. Ms.Disha Karambar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 12TH JUNE, 2009. P.C.- 1. The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) again as in spite of various orders passed by this Court against the same Respondents, it appears that the Respondents are not willing and desire to pay all the dues of the Petitioner. Those orders are dated 3rd March, 2009 and 20th February, 2009 in Arbitration Petition No. 615 of 2008. Though Petitioners have sold two vehicles of the Respondents in other matters 2 yet the huge amount is due and payable. 2. Considering the averments made and the conduct of the Respondents, it is a fit case where the Petition need to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). This Court has already by order dated 23rd April, 2009 granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (f). The Respondents are not responded to the same and even not disclosing their assets. 3. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with liberty including to furnish security and or to settle the matter and to raise defence before the Arbitral tribunal, if any. The prayer clause (a) is as under:- “a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to surrender the said properties/ assets as more particularly stated in Exhibit B hereto with the liberty to the Petitioner to sell the said properties and realize the sale proceeds thereof.” 4. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)