( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") for appointment of a Receiver to seize the leased plant and machinery.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, a non-banking financial company engaged in the business of leasing and hire of equipment and plant and machinery etc. on the request of the respondent, had given to the respondent the following plant and machinery on lease :-

2 Numbers, Steam Sterilizer (Autoclave) Type : KE-SS-30 Horizontal Rectangular High Pressure Vacuum, Steam Sterilizer. 1 Number, Rubber Stopper /treatment system Air Handling, Air filtration System for Bulk and Sterile Formulation Plant I set Linear Vial Washer with infeed loading platform, unsrambler, pumps, filters, controls etc. and Sterilizing Tunnel with drying-sterilizing-cooling stabilizing zones, electrical control panel, S. S. biopragm for which lease agreement No. 03/blr/l/088 dated 25. 3. 1995 was entered into. The respondent was to pay lease money in 20 quarterly instalments of Rs. 15. 00 lakhs each. Some payments were made and some cheques given were dishonoured. These instalments have not been paid as agreed in spite of demands and promises and a sum of Rs. 2,27,49,374. 00 remains due from the respondent. The agreement has been terminated on 27. 1. 1998. It is claimed that the petitioner is the owner of the plant and machinery in question and so is entitled to take and seize the same. Hence this petition for appointment of a Receiver.

( 3 ) THE respondent in reply has disputed this; petitioner s ownership is denied. It is denied that the plant and machinery in question was given on licence. It is claimed that it has paid Rs. 1. 35 croes in 9 instalments and the respondent is its owner. It is further pleaded that the respondent is a sick industrial company and a reference has been made under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short "sica") before the BIFR and in view of Section 22 (1) of SICA, this petition for appointment of Receiver is not maintainable. It is also alleged that the lease agreement in question is not enforceable in law because they were forced to sign the same under compelling circumstances. It is denied that Rs. 2,27,49,374. 00 are due from the respondent. Further that in pursuance of arbitration agreement, arbitrator has been appointed by both the parties and inview of the arbitration proceedings also this petition is not maintainable.

( 4 ) NO one appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of arguments. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner who has contended that the plant and machinery in question was given on lease under lease agreement and its terms are binding on the parties; that in terms of the lease agreement, the plant and machinery belong to the petitioner and it has right to seize and take it into possession. Section 22 of SICA is not attracted in these circumstances. She has inter alia relied on GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. v. Dee Phanna Ltd. 76 (1998) DLT 273 and the judgement of the Division Bench thereon dated 14. 10. 1998 dismissing the appeal (CO. A. 29/98 ).

( 5 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 22 of SICA so far is relevant provides as under :-

"22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc.- (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme REFERRED TO to under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under Section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the lik