1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 250 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited ...Petitioner. Vs. Satishkumar Vasant Yadav & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/by Ms.Disha Karambar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 12TH JUNE, 2009. P.C.- 1. This Court by an order dated 22nd April, 2009 granted relief in terms of prayer clause (c). Though served, contesting Respondent No. 1 yet not responded to this. The averments made in the Petition are remained uncontroverted, it means the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay amount of Rs.5,60,920/- being defaulters. The Petitioner is not claiming any claim in this Petition against Respondent No.2 who is expired as per office record. Therefore, 2 seeking claim only against Respondent No.1 – the Principal borrower. 2. In view of this, considering the averments made and as sufficient case is made out to pass order as prayed and basically to secure the amount, I am inclined to grant relief in terms of prayer clause (a) with directions to the Respondents to furnish the solvent security to this Court of Rs.5,60,920/- within a period of 8 weeks. Prayer clause (a) reads thus:- “(a) The Respondents be ordered and directed within such time as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court to furnish solvent security to the Hon’ble Court for the entire sum of Rs.5,60,920/- together with interest at the rate of 3% per month as more particularly mentioned in the said Loan Agreement to secure the claim of the Petitioner within such time as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.” 3. Resultantly, the present Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with liberty. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)