Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) An application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the appellant, a hirer, in terms of a hire purchase agreement. This was registered as Misc. Case No. 637 of 2001 in the City Civil & Sessions Court, Calcutta. By an order No. 8 dated 23rd May, 2001 that application was dismissed on the ground that there was nothing to indicate that the applicant was ready and willing to apply for arbitration. This appeal has been preferred against the said order.
(2.) On facts, it appears that the agreement was valid till 23rd October, 2000, within which the last eighteenth instalment was payable. Admittedly, fifteen instalments were paid. Sixteenth to eighteenth instalments were not paid. The fifteenth instalment was paid on 10th January, 2001, a little late. The vehicle was seized on 9th February, 2001. It is alleged that the appellant had offered the amount of the balance three installments, namely, Rs. 14,400/- on 10th of February, 2001 but that was not accepted. A notice was issued and then an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was preferred. In the application, the applicant had pointed out that a sum of Rs. 49,800/- was claimed to be due. But in the proceedings respondent had claimed Rs. 65,500/-. In this background the present question has to be considered.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that Section 9 does not postulate that the arbitration proceeding is to be initiated before the Section 9 application is disposed of. On the other hand, he points out that in the application he had indicated his intention to go for arbitration. However, he is ready and willing to pay whatever amount might be determined by the Court but the vehicle should be released. He further points out that he has been deprived of the use of the vehicle from 10th of January, 2001.;