skt/- 1 100.arbpl.476.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 476 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner Vs. Ramesh A. Bachate & Ors. ... Respondents ...... Mr.Rahul Mehta i/by Disha Karambar for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ...... CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 9th DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. 1. The matter is listed for final hearing. 2. Though served, none appeared for the respondents. Affidavit of service, dated 9th December 2009 is filed. 3. The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short 'the Arbitration Act'). The arbitration proceedings is pending in Mumbai. Though served, the respondents are not appearing. The loan-cum-guarantee agreement entered in Mumbai as per the agreement clause. They have agreed that Mumbai Court has jurisdiction. skt/- 2 100.arbpl.476.09.sxw 4. The averments made in the petition remained uncontraverted including the liability. Respondent no.1 is the Principle Borrower, respondent no.2 is the Co-borrower and respondent no.3 is the Guarantor. They are parties to the proceedings / loan-cum-guarantee agreement whereby respondent nos. 4, 5, 6 are not the parties to the arbitration agreement at all. Therefore, the petition against respondent nos. 4, 5, 6 is dismissed as no relief can be granted against the person who is not the party to the arbitration proceedings. So far as the respondent nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, in view of above facts and circumstances and uncontraverted averments, at this stage, I am inclined to grant the following relief : The respondent no. 1 is restrained from creating third party right or interest in respect of the property listed in Exhibit 'B', Item No.1 only, as the amount involved is Rs. 3,00,000 and above, pending the decision of the arbitral proceedings. The liberty is granted to the respondents to settle the matter and/or apply for modification of this order also. skt/- 3 100.arbpl.476.09.sxw 5. The petition is partly allowed only to the above extent and dismissed against respondent nos. 4, 5, 6. [ ANOOP V. MOHTA, J ]