1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO.210 OF 2009 Vcustomer Services India Pvt.LOtd. .... Petitioners vs The Atlantic Technologies .... Respondents Mr. M.M. Vashi for the petitioner. Ms. Vaishali Thorat for the respondents. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 29th July, 2009 P.C.: 1 Heard finally by consent. 2 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) as their Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 8.9.2008 could not be materialised for various reasons. Therefore, this petition. 3 The submission that this Letter of Intent itself is not in existence as it was terminated by letter dated 25.09.2008 by the petitioner and thereby also requested to refund the token money of Rs.6,70,250/-. The termination of such contract, at whatever point of time, the clause of arbitration agreement still remained to settle the dispute arising out of the contract. Therefore, there is no force in the submission that this petition in view of the termination of letter of Intent in question is not maintainable. The agreed document having this clause 2 itself sufficient to maintain such petition under the Act. 4 There is no dispute that the respondent has received the said amount pursuance to the LOI. Though contract is terminated and/or could not be materialised, for what reason, that the Arbitral Tribunal will decide finally, at this stage, in view of undisputed position on record, that itself sufficient to grant the relief as prayed to secure the amount i.e. Rs.6,70,250/-. 5 Therefore, in view of above and considering the averments, I am inclined to grant prayer (a). However, the learned counsel appearing for respondent makes statement that they are ready to furnish Bank Guarantee to the extent of Rs. 6,70,250/-. The other side has also no objection for the same. This, in my view, sufficient to secure the amount. 6 Resultant, the petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)