When the appellant came to know that other litigation was pending against the respondent it filed an application under Section 9 of the 1996 Act before the City Trial Court, Chennai, praying for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take custody of the hire purchase machinery equipment and restore the same to the interim custody of the appellant herein.
One of the main companytentions urged on behalf of the respondent was that as numberarbitration proceedings were pending and even the arbitrator had number been appointed, an application under Section 9 of the 1996 Act for getting interim relief alone was number maintainable.
1999 1 SCR 89 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KIRPAL, J. Leave granted.
The terms of the agreement companytemplated payments being made in instalments by the respondent, the first instalment was payable on 29th September, 1995 and the last was due by 25th August, 1998.
In all the payment was to be made by 36 instalments.
This application was taken up for hearing on 7th April, 1998 and the Trial Court passed an interim order appointing a Commis sioner to take possession of the turbines with the help of the police.
The aforesaid order of the Trial Court was challenged with the respondent filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court at Madras.
On merits it was companytended that the ex parte order which was passed by the trial companyrt was uncalled for.
Hence these appeals by special leave.
The hire purchase agreement companytained an arbitration clause which reads as follows All disputes, differences and or claims, arising out of this hire purchase agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provision of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the sole arbitration of an arbitrator numberinated by the Managing Director of the owner.
While supporting the order of the Trial Court the appellant herein had submitted before the High Court that interim order companyld be passed even before the companymencement of the arbitral proceedings.
By its judgment dated 22nd June 1998, the High Court allowed the respondents petition.
According to the appellant the respondent paid the first fifteen instalments and thereafter companymitted default and payment was number made La spite of several demands being made by the appellant.
The relevant facts which are necessary for the companysideration of the point in issue are that the respondent had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the appellant herein in respect of supply of two wind turbine generators along with all accessories.
