1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 501 OF 2009 L & T Finance Limited .... Petitioner vs 1 Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Rai (Borrower) 2 Mr.Surender Kumar Rai,(Guarantor), Mumbai. .... Respondents Ms. S.I. Joshi i/b. M/s. S.I. Joshi & Associates for the petitioner. Mr. O. P. Singh for the respondents. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 14th October, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) as the respondents have committed various defaults in making the due payments, based upon the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement. There is no denial to the liability. 2 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, is that the respondents are willing to settle the matter. That itself is not sufficient to overlook the averments so raised in the petition including the liability so claimed. 3 The respondents have been using the vehicles without due payments. 2 Therefore, considering the scope and purpose of Section 9 of the Act read with Order 40, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, (CPC) and as all elements are available, I am inclined to grant prayer (a-i) except bracketed portion. The prayer (d) already granted is confirmed. 4 However, the liberty is granted to the respondents to apply for settlement and to make representation accordingly. The petitioner may consider the same. Therefore, though the Receiver is appointed, the petitioner shall not sell the said vehicles for four weeks. If the proposal of settlement is rejected, the petitioner is free to implement the rests of the order. 5 The liberty is also granted to the petitioner to take police assistance, if necessary. 6 I do not deny the right of the respondents to take appropriate plea or defence before the Arbitral Tribunal, if constituted. 7 The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer (a-i) except bracketed portion and prayer (d). No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)