1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 93 OF 2009 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. .... Petitioner vs Nitin Shahajirao Jadhav & anr. .... Respondents Mrs. Vijaya Mishra i/b. India Law Alliance for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Bobade for the respondents. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 2nd September, 2009 P.C.: 1 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) as the respondents failed to pay as many as 37 instalments, but still have been using the said vehicle. 2 Though served, there is no reply and there is no denial to the same. The averments so made in the petition remained un-controverted for all the purpose. It also means that the apprehension so raised by the petitioner has substance and as prima facie case is made out and all ingredients as available are sufficient to confirm the appointment of Receiver and further to confirm that the interim relief already granted in terms of prayer (d). 3 Resultantly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayers (d) and (e), except bracketed portion. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply for 2 modification of order. 4 Liberty is also granted to the respondents to settle the matter and/or furnish the security if they so desire. 5 I do not deny the right of respondents to contest the matter and/or raise appropriate pleas before the Arbitral Tribunal, if so constituted. 6 The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayers (d) and (e), except bracketed portion, with liberty. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)