1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 722 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Tara Nagshi Momaya ...Respondent. Mr. Chinmay Gupte i/by M/s. Gadkari & Co. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 7th JANUARY, 2010. P.C.- 1 None appeared for the Respondent, though served. There is a reply dated 5th December, 2009 and there is a denial to the claim basically on the ground that the statement so recorded is incorrect. The calculations are wrong. The interest rate so charged is also excessive. This defence, now can be gone into before the Arbitral Tribunal. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Respondent is not appearing however, without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, at this stage, considering the averments made and as there is no denial to the existence of the agreement and as this Court has already granted prayer clause (e), I am inclined to grant prayer clause (a). 2 The Respondent to furnish security to the satisfaction of the 2 Petitioner within eight weeks from the receipt of this copy of this order. Prayer Clause (e) as already granted till the disposal of the Arbitration proceeding. 3 The liberty is granted to the Respondent to apply or move for settlement and/or raise appropriate plea/defence before the Arbitral Trbunal, if any. 4 The Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (e) with liberty. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)