1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 247 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. .... Petitioner vs 1 Vijay Prakash Rai 2 Ms. Punam Rai .... Respondents Mr.Nikhil Mehta with Mr.Rahul 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 As the averments remained uncontroverted, that means the liability remained un-paid, therefore, as the case is made out as contemplated under Order 40 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, I am inclined to grant this Petition in terms of prayer (a) by deleting the brackets as ordered on 22.04.2009. 4 However, the liberty is granted to the respondents to settle the matter and/or to furnish the security to the extent of amount involved. 2 5 I do not deny the right of the respondents to raise appropriate pleas/defences before the Arbitral Tribunal, if any so constituted. 6 The liberty is also granted to the petitioners to seek police help, if case is made out. 7 The Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer (a) with liberty. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)