HAIRTHA FINANCE LTD Vs. ATV PROJECTS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Application is filed under Section 9 (ii) (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act stating that the Applicant-Company has entered into a lease agreement dated 8.9.1993 with the respondent-company with respect to equipment. The said lease agreement dated 8.9.1993 was assigned under the deed of assignment dated 30.7.1998 to M/s TVS Lakshmi Credit Limited. To the said agreement the respondent is also a signatory and thereby they agreed that the original agreement dated 8.9.1993 would hold good and continue to be in the hands of the assignee, M/s TVS Lakshmi Credit Limited. By an order dated 31.7.1999 in C.P.Nos.141 and 142 of 1999, M/s TVS Lakshmi Credit Ltd., was amalgamated with the Applicant's Company. Referring to Clause 31 which provides that all disputes, differences and claims and questions have to be resolved by referring the same to the Arbitrator, it is stated that they have referred the dispute to the Arbitrator. It is also stated that the respondent-company was declared as a sick company by the B.I.F.R. On the basis of these averments, the Applicant has come forward with this Application to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to seize with the police protection and sell the equipments subject to the matter of the lease agreement dated 8.9.1993 and adjust the proceeds thereof to the outstanding of the respondent.

(2.) THOUGH the respondent filed a counter and the learned counsel submitted that the agreement does not provide to appoint sole arbitrator, the fact remains, he admits the existence of a clause to appoint an Arbitrator in the agreement.

(3.) BEFORE enacting the Act, the parties are entitled to get interim orders under Section 41 of the Act 1940 read with Second Schedule of the Act 1940. Section 41 of the Act 1940 is altogether different from the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. So, we cannot rely on Section 41 though the said provision also provided to approach the Court to get interim orders. To understand the scope of Section 9 of the Act, we have to see the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill with respect to the Act. It is specifically stated that the Arbitration Act, 1940, had become outdated. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNICITRAL) and the Rules made there under were taken as a model legislation to legislate the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.