Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. This petition has been preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the petitioner to seek the following interim reliefs:-

“(a) direct respondent No. 1 to forthwith return the first rake to the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the Master Wagon Lease Agreement;

(b) direct respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to pay the outstanding rents for the first rake being due and payable to the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,95,79,589/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Five Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Nine only) along with such amounts of lease rentals that may become due and payable till such time as the first rake is actually returned to the petitioner or direct the respondents to deposit the same with the Registrar of this Court to be maintained in a fixed deposit pending Arbitration and Award;

(c) direct the respondents to provide a Bank Guarantee in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.14,03,60,453.00/- (Rupees Fourteen Crore, Three Lakh, Sixty Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Three) to secure the amounts that the Petitioner is entitled to under Section 10.3.1(A) of the Master Agreement in relation to the first rake, pending arbitration and award;

(d) direct respondent no. 1 and respondent No. 2 to provide a Bank Guarantee in favour of the petitioner for the sum of Rs.15,81,45,346.00 (Rupees Fifteen Crore, Eighty One Lakh, Forty Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Fourty Six only) being the amount already accrued under Section 2.1.3 of the Master Agreement as a result of the failure by respondent No. 1 to take delivery of the second rake from the petitioner;

(e) restrain respondent No. 1 from alienating or creating any third party rights or interest in the first rake leased to it by the petitioner.

2. During the pendency of the petition, the first rake has been returned to the petitioner – though with a different brake van than the one supplied by the petitioner. Relief (a), therefore, does not survive. Relief (e) also does not survive, since there is no surviving apprehension of the respondents dealing with the first rake – which already stands returned to the petitioner. Relief (b) cannot be granted by way of an interim relief and, therefore, the petitioner has not pressed the same. The petitioner has pressed the petition partially in respect of reliefs (c) and (d) aforesaid.

3. The petitioner claims to be a company engaged in the business of leasing equipment – particularly leasing of railway wagons and locomotives. Respondent no. 1 is a company apparently registered with the Indian Railways as a Container Train Operator. It is engaged in the business of setting up rail infrastructure/network including operations/movement of containers, goods, trains using Indian Railway network. It acquires on lease/licence or otherwise container trains, rakes, wagons bogies for its business. Respondent no. 2 company is the holding company of respondent no.1.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into a Master Wagon Lease Agreement with respondent no. 1 on 21.05.2012 (Master Agreement), the Supplement No. 1 Agreement (Supplement No. 1) on the same day (collectively referred to as the 'Lease Agreement'), and the Lease Amendment dated 28.08.2012 (Lease Amendment). Under the Lease Agreement, respondent no. 1 agreed to take on lease ten rakes from the petitioner. To secure the discharge of obligations by respondent no. 1, respondent no. 2 executed a Deed of Guarantee dated 22.05.2012 (Guarantee). The case of the petitioner is that consequent to the aforesaid Lease Agreement, the petitioner executed a Wagon Purchase Agreement dated 23.05.2012 (Purchase Agreement) with Titagarh Wagons Limited (Manufacturer) for purchase of ten rakes that were to be manufactured specially for being given on lease to respondent no. 1. The petitioner states that the delivery schedule of the newly manufactured rakes under the Purchase Agreem