- (1.) The first respondent has seriously questioned the propriety of this court to receive the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only at the very last stage of the final hearing. But it cannot be said that such ground was not indicated earlier. It is evident that the first respondent expressed his reservation on such aspect when he was represented for the first time in course of the proceedings. The ground is also squarely taken in the affidavit filed by the first respondent. However, the minor matter as to territorial jurisdiction was relegated to the back-burner upon a startling allegation being made by the first respondent against the receiver appointed in the matter and the objection appeared to have been given up till resurrected just at the end.
(2.) The undisputed facts are that the petitioner financed the acquisition of two assets by the first respondent. The second respondent guaranteed due payment of the money due under the agreement. The first respondent defaulted in the payment of a few instalments whereupon the petitioner sought to terminate the agreement and recalled the entire amount due thereunder. Upon AP No. 831 of 2010 being received, an initial order was passed on January 12, 2011. The petitioner sought and obtained the ex parte appointment of a receiver to be in symbolic possession of the two assets financed and make an inventory thereof. The usual order of injunction was also passed. The first respondent was represented when the matter was next taken up on June 14, 2011. The ground of jurisdiction was urged and the forum selection clause in the agreement was cited. The court also noticed the following allegation of the first respondent: " Counsel for the hirer submits that the equipment/equipments are not in the possession of his client as some agent of the petitioner has taken possession of them forcibly from the hirer."
(3.) The court observed in the order of June 14, 2011 that the receiver could not be directed to take physical possession of the asset before the issue as to the authority of this court to entertain the petition was resolved. Directions were given for filing affidavits. Affidavits were thereafter filed.;