A. K. SIKRI, J.

These three applications under Sections 7, 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') are filed by the applicant for appointment of an arbitrator for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes, differences, claims and questions which have arisen between the parties. All the applications involve same question of law, to be decided under similar set of facts, for sake of convenience, facts of Arb. P. No. 162/99 are noted.

The applicant is a non-banking financial company. In the year 1995 it agreed to grant lease finance for purchase of certain equipments to the respondent no. 1, which is also a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The lease agreement dated 29th March, 1995 was entered into between the parties. Certain equipments, details whereof are given in para 7(d) were purchased and leased out to the respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 2, who is Chairman of respondent no. 1 - company stood guarantee for repayment of the amount and signed deed of guarantee. Respondent no. 1 also executed demand promissory note for a sum of Rs. 43,88,472 which was forwarded to the applicant under the cover of its letter dated 31st March, 1995. The equipment was installed by respondent no. 1 at its premises at 10, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi.

The term of the agreement was for a period of 36 months and monthly lease rentals for this period were to be given by respondent no. 1 as per Clause 4 of the agreement. It was also agreed in this agreement that the applicant would remain sole and exclusive owner of the leased equipment and right to use the equipment by the respondents was subject to payment of lease rentals with the stipulated regularity. Clause 23 of the agreement provides that if there is any 'default' on the part of the respondent no. 1 in making payment of rentals or part thereof or in making other payments due under the agreement, the applicant could declare all sums due under the agreement as being immediately payable.

According to the averments made in the application, the respondent no. 1 did not adhere to the schedule and certain payments were made which were also irregular. Several cheques issued by the respondent no. 1 in this behalf were also dishonoured. Large sums became due and vide letter dated July 24, 1997 liability of Rs. 56,03,616 was even admitted. Certain payments, however, were made thereafter and as on June 30, 1998 outstanding amount was Rs. 44,41,865. In view of these defaults, notice dated 22nd August, 1998 was also issued calling upon the respondent no. 1 to make payment of the entire amount. After receipt of this notice the respondents approached the applicant for amicable settlement. Since there were two more agreements (in respect of which Arb. P. Nos. 166/99 and 167/99 are filed) on 26th December, 1998 an agreement was arrived at whereby the respondent no. 1 agreed that a sum of Rs. 1,45,37,532 was due. However, it was agreed that the respondent no. 1 shall make payment of Rs. 56,55,824 to the applicant in the manner provided therein. It was also agreed that in the event of default, the entire amount would become payable. Though first two instalments under the said agreement dated 26th December, 1998 were paid, cheque in respect of third instalment was dishonoured. The two cheques dated 10th March, 1999 were given in lieu of the said dishonoured cheque. However, the applicant treated it as default as envisaged in the agreement dated 26th December, 1998 and vide letter dated 30th March, 1999 demanded the entire amount which had become payable under the three lease agreements. Some more payments were made thereafter which were appropriated by the applicant but the applicant maintains that there is a default.

Since the contract between the parties contains an arbitration clause/agreement, prayer is made for appointment of an arbitrator. Both the respondents have filed separate replies and have contested the application. The obj