1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1730 OF 2009 Tata Capital Limited ...Petitioner. Vs. Gopi Kantam Neni ...Respondent/s. Mr. Nikhil Mehta with Mr. Rahul Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Venture for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent/s. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 25th JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1 The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act), as the Respondent/s committed default in making payment towards the loan agreement having arbitration clause. 2 The Arbitrator has already been appointed. The Respondent is not attending the same also. 3. The Petitioner issued notice on the basis of address available on record. The Respondent/s avoiding by one way or other, the private, as well as, the Court notice also. Considering the averments made and as it remained uncontroverted and as the case is made out by the Petitioner and 2 as of agreement which are required under Order 40 of Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 9 of the Act, I am inclined to grant prayer clause (d). The prayer clause (c), as granted earlier, is vacated. 4. The Respondent to furnish solvent security to the sum of Rs.8,96,555/- within a period of eight weeks and or settle the matter. The liberty is granted to raise appropriate plea or defence before the Arbitral Tribunal, if any. 5. The Petition is accordingly allowed. This order shall continue till the enforcement of the award under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. 6 No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)