1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 240 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. .... Petitioner vs Deepak M. Surana & 2 ors. .... Respondents Mr.Nikhil Mehta with Ms.Disha Karambar for the petitioner. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 27th August, 2009 P.C.: 1 This petition is under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act). The particulars of claim shows that the respondents have not paid the amount pursuance to the Loan-cum-Hypothecation-cum-Guarantee Agreement. The averments so made remained un-controverted. The respondents, though served, did not appear till this date. Considering the averments, therefore, this Court on 26.04.2009 granted prayer (a) except bracketed portion, but in vain, as the petitioner/the receiver unable to trace out the vehicle itself. 2 In view of this, I see there is no reason to keep this matter pending and I am inclined to grant prayer (b) to secure the amount as well as the subject matter of the dispute. The Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b). 3 I do not deny the right of the respondents to contest and/or raise appropriate plea before the Arbitral Tribunal, if any, constituted. 2 4 The respondents are also at liberty to settle the matter. 5 The petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)