Vinod Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) By this common order and judgment, I propose to dispose of the main petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the application filed by the respondents for vacating the ad interim order dated July 16, 1998.
(2.) The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner, Alpic Finance Limited, being a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, carries on the business of financing. As a financier it entered into a hire purchase agreement with respect to the hiring/financing of an AC Transformer (Siemens Make UPS (IOKVA, Model 4110 51. 1950905) ; IOKVA, 220/110V AC Transformer). This agreement was executed on November 19, 1996. The total hire purchase value of the aforesaid machine was Rs. 1,17,94,755 and it was payable by the respondents within three years by 12 equal quarterly instalments. The possession of the machine was made over by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 in terms of the aforesaid hire purchase agreement. It is the admitted case of the parties that respondent No. 1 received the machine after the execution of the agreement and has been using the same ever since. The allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 has paid to the petitioner only an amount of Rs. 28,83,246. Thereafter he defaulted in paying the hire moneys. Some post-dated cheques issued by respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner on being presented by the petitioner to the banker were dishonoured. Ultimately, the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement existing between the parties and lodged its claims worth Rs. 1,24,33,287 before the sole arbitrator, Pulin Behari Das. The statement of claims was, accordingly, filed by the petitioner before the sole arbitrator. It is also admitted that the respondents have filed their objections to the aforesaid statement of claims before the sole arbitrator. On July 16, 1998, when this petition came up before this court for consideration, an ad interim order was passed appointing Subhas Dey, barrister-at-law, as the receiver for the purpose of making an inventory of the aforesaid machinery and for taking symbolical possession of the same. It was also directed that if the respondents deposited with the receiver an amount of Rs. 24,00,000, the receiver was not to take any further action. But if such deposit was not made, the receiver was to take actual physical possession of the machinery and remove the same to a safe place to be provided for by the petitioner. On August 5, 1998, at the instance of the respondents, the court directed that the receiver would not take any further steps, as stipulated in the order dated July 16, 1998.
(3.) In the application for vacating the order dated July 16, 1998, and in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents to the petition under Section 9 of the Act, two points have been urged in support of the contention that the petition under Section 9 of the Act is not maintainable. The first point relates to the very maintainability of the petition at its very threshold under Section 9 of the Act. The second point arises out of the interpretation to be put upon Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.;