1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 225 OF 2009 L & T Finance Limited ...Petitioner. Vs. Mr. Vijay Dhondiram Gawari & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Kishore N. Shriyan for the Petitioner. Mr. Prashant D. Patil for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 20th AUGUST, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act), as the Respondents though using the vehicles/equipments, failed to make the payment regularly. That resulted into default of Rs. 6,28,304/- on 28th February, 2009. 2 The Respondents by his reply even challenging the execution of the agreement in question, based upon that agreement the Respondent is using the said vehicles just cannot be overlooked. The possession of the vehicles is with them is also not disputed. This Court by order dated 17th June, 2009, therefore, granted prayer clause (a) except the bracketed portion. The Receiver is already taken possession of the vehicles. The vehicles are 2 in the possession of the Court Receiver. The matter was adjourned from time to time for settlement, but in vain. 3 Considering this, I see there is a clear case made out by the Petitioner for complete prayer clause (a). The balance of convenience, irreparable loss and injury and as the prima facie case is made out, I am inclined to grant prayer clause (a) in full. 4 The liberty is granted to the Respondents to settled the matter. I do not deny the rights of the Respondents to raise appropriate pleas under the law before the Arbitral Tribunal, if constituted. 5 The Petition is, accordingly allowed, with liberty. No order as to cost. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)