( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short act ) seeking interim protection by way of restraining the respondent from in any manner recovering the amount of Rs. 10,51,737. 60 raised in the impugned bill either directly or indirectly and also from disconnecting, altering or otherwise affecting the continuous supply of electricity to the petitioner under the agreement dated 22/ 24/11/1999 during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.

( 2 ) BY way of an experiment, the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board (in short Board) decided to engage an agency or individual for getting the Job of revenue realising from persons using electricity from the source in the designated area on the basis of payment of commission for the services rendered by the said agency or individual. In the instant case, the respondent-Board entered into an agreement with the petitioner Smt. Baby Arya in respect of designed H Block Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner agreed to pay minimum revenue of 75% of the electricity recorded in the meters provided by respondent board Jointly read on monthly basis. Clause 7 of the agreement provides that in the event of default respondent-Board will be entitled to terminate the agreement and the party committing an event of default which is capable of being remedied will be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the default by a written notice. It was further agreed that petitioner shall indemnify respondent board against any claims, demands, costs and expenses whatsoever which may be against it because of failure of the petitioner or its representative in the performance of their duties and negligence, any accident or injury to any person or timely payment to any employee.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, on 25/9/2000, a bill for the amount of Rs. 10,51,737. 00 was received by the petitioner stating therein that payment should be made by 26/9/2000 with the threat that FIR will be lodged in case of non-payment of bill before the due date.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, this bill was not a regular bill like other bills which were received by the petitioner in the past. It was a provisional bill which according to the respondent was on account of fraudulent abstraction of electricity.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the agreement does not contemplate any provisional billing as the respondent- Board had been raising actual bills on meter reading basis and payments against each bill were made without any delay or default.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to the respondent-Board, the petitioner was engaged to cater to 392 dwelling units in the area but she arbitrarily extended its supply to about 900 dwelling units without the permission and extension of the agreement on these lines and was found committing theft of electricity as well as cheating for which a report has already been lodged with the local police. The petitioner has collected huge amount from these unauthorised consumers by not supplying electricity to the original consumers for whose benefits connections were given. However, the petitioner had also made an agreement for the inclusion of 172 dwelling units.

( 7 ) ON 28/7/2000 for the purpose of recording the consumption of electricity supplied to the consumers, meter was checked by the Meter Testing department. The Meter Testing department found the following pilferages showing theft of electricity by the petitioner.

"a) One seal of CT/pt terminal cover found tampered, where other seal was found intact and O. K. also lower being found missing. b) Meter chamber door seal found intact and OK. c) Full seal found intact and OK. d) Potential on the meter terminal for y phase was not available which was found disconnected. On checking after removing the seals of the CT/pt terminal covers it was also observed by the team that meter was recording 5- per cent less consumption due to disconnection/missing of Y phase potential. This was checked on 28/7/2000 and reseating was also done on the same