-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Chamber Summons No. 2030 of 2009 IN Arbitration Petition No. 449 of 2008 TATA Motors Ltd. ..Petitioner. Versus Raj Tours Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Chinmay Gupte i/b M/s. Mohit Gadkari & Co., for the petitioner. Mr. Santosh Naik, Assistant Registrar, Rep. of Court Receiver is present. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : February 8, 2010. P. C. : 1. Mr. Gupte, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner makes a statement that the respondent is served twice. He is directed to file service affidavit within the period of two days from today. Inspite of service, none appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. This chamber summons is taken out for permitting the petitioner to sell the vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-04-G-5157 by private treaty. 3. The above arbitration petition was filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. By consent, on 9th February 2009 this Court passed order whereby the arbitration petition was disposed of in terms of prayer clause (d). Prayer clause (d) of the Arbitration petition reads thus : “That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to appoint the Court Receiver, High Court Bombay or some other fit and proper person be appointed as the Receiver of the said Vehicle i.e., make/model name LPO 1616TC, Registration No. MH-04-G-5157 more particularly described in the Schedule being Exhibit-A to the petition with all powers to take possession of the same from the respondent and/or from any other person, who may be in possession of the said vehicle, and with further permission to sell the same.” -: 2 :- . This Court further directed the petitioner to adjust the amount received from the sale of vehicle towards the amount due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner. 3. Pursuant to the above order, the Court Receiver has taken possession of the said vehicle on 11th September 2009. Thereafter the Court Receiver tried to sell the said vehicle by public auction and for that purpose public notice was published in “Indian Express” and “Navshakti”. However, the said vehicle could not be sold for want of bids. In the meanwhile the Arbitrator has also passed an award on 5th October 2009 holding the respondents liable to pay an amount of Rs.24,51,663/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, chamber summons is filed for allowing the petitioner to sell the said vehicle by private treaty. The representative of Court Receiver has no objection if the vehicle is sold by private treaty. The respondents have also not appeared either by filing vakaltnama or reply to the chamber summons, and therefore averments made in the chamber summons are deemed to have been accepted by them. 5. In the light of the above position, the Chamber summons deserves to be allowed. Chamber summons is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). However, the petitioner is directed to pay cost, charges and commission of the Court Receiver as per the High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. 6. Chamber summons stands disposed of. (R.V. MORE, J.)