Arbp605.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 605 OF 2009 Citi Corp Finance (India) Limited ...Petitioner. Vs. Dayanand Patil ...Respondent. Mr. Chinmay Gupte i/by M/s. Mohit Gadkari & Co. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 8TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.- 1 The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). There is an arbitration clause, providing jurisdiction of this Court in Mumbai. 2 the averments so made with regard to the default in making payment, remained uncontroverted till this date. On 09/09/2009, this Court has already granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). No one is appeared in spite of service after admission of the matter. Affidavit of service dated 8th February, 2010 is filed on record. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner makes statement that the award is also passed against the Respondent for the said amount. Arbp605.09 2 4 Considering this and as all the elements are available as contemplated under Order 40, Rule 1 and 2 read with Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), now, I am inclined to grant prayer clause (a) also. However, the Petitioner shall pay requisite charges of the Court Receiver, even though, used the private service for sale. 5 Resultantly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), with no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)