MEPC INDIA LIMITED Vs. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the lower Court in O.P. No. 137 of 1998 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and four miscellaneous petitions are filed along with these revisions.

(2.) The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of these revisions could be summarised thus: The petitioner and the respondent entered into a hire purchase agreement regarding supply of two Wind Turbine Generators on 25-9-1995 after agreeing to the schedule of repayment and also consequence in case of default. Clause 24-a of the hire purchase agreement provided for an arbitration clause which reads thus :

(3.) The petitioner defaulted in payment. Some correspondence followed and finally, the respondent came to know that various litigations were pending against the petitioner and therefore invoking clause 24-a of the hire purchase agreement, it filed an application under Section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the Act'). Though the petition was filed on 3-4-1998, it was taken up and numbered only 7-4-1998. Along with the main application, two other interlocutory applications were also filed; one for appointment of a Commissioner and the other for getting police protection. On 7-4-1998 itself the lower Court passed the impugned order appointing a Commissioner to take possession of the goods with the help of the police. This order is challenged in all these revisions mainly for the reason that the petition in O.P. No. 137 of 1998 itself is not maintainable and therefore, the Court did not have jurisdiction to pass an order.