The Court allowed an Arbitration Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, noting the respondent's failure to appear and summarize that arbitration was warranted despite the inability to trace a secured vehicle.
The petition was allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) to initiate arbitration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 240 OF 2009
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs Deepak M. Surana & 2 ors.
.... Petitioner
.... Respondents
Mr.Nikhil Mehta with Ms.Disha Karambar for the petitioner.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATE : 27th August, 2009
P.C.:
1 This petition is under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act). The particulars of claim shows that the respondents have not paid the amount pursuance to the Loan-cum-Hypothecation-cum-Guarantee Agreement. The averments so made remained un-controverted. The respondents, though served, did not appear till this date. Considering the averments, therefore, this Court on 26.04.2009 granted prayer (a) except bracketed portion, but in vain, as the petitioner/the receiver unable to trace out the vehicle itself.
2 In view of this, I see there is no reason to keep this matter pending and I am inclined to grant prayer (b) to secure the amount as well as the subject matter of the dispute. The Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b).
3 I do not deny the right of the respondents to contest and/or raise appropriate plea before the Arbitral Tribunal, if any, constituted.
2
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 can be invoked as a remedy preceding the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Deepak M. Surana & 2 ors.
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
