1 arbpl1739.09.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1739 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ....Petitioner. Vs. Satish Moreshwar Naik & Anr. ....Respondents. Ms. Disha Karambar for the Petitioner. Mr. Ravindra V. Sankpal for the Respondents. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 21st JANUARY, 2011 P.C.: The petition is under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act). Considering the averments made and as the case is made out, this Court on 17th December, 2009 admitted the matter and made it returnable on 28th January, 2010. The Respondents appeared and sought time for negotiating the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner makes statement that there is no such settlement proposal sent and/or forwarded. Last chance was granted on 14th January, 2011. 2 arbpl1739.09.sxw ssm 2 There is no denial to the averments so raised covering the aspect of persistent defaults in making the payment towards the agreed loan. Therefore, considering the scope of Section 9 of the Act, and as the case is made out and the Arbitration Proceeding is pending and as the averments so made remained uncontroverted, I am inclined to allow this Petition in terms of prayer clause (c). However, the liberty is granted to the Respondents to settle the matter, if they want so. The order so passed shall continue till the Arbitration Proceedings attains finality. Office objections, if any, are dispensed with. Matter be registered. 3 The Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (c), with liberty. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)