JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. - This petition, preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act") seeks certain pre-arbitration interim reliefs.

2. The consent, of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent, ad idem, to final disposal of the present OMP, on the basis of arguments advanced and written submissions filed, without any further pleadings being brought on record, stands specifically noted. Accordingly, this judgement disposes of the OMP.

Factual Backdrop

3. The petitioner provides scheduled air operator services, under the name "Flybig". The respondents are engaged in the business and lease of aircrafts, and other associated activities. Respondent No. 1 is one of the group companies of Respondent No 2. Respondent No. 2 was running his business, in India, through Respondent No. 1.

4. The aircraft, forming subject matter of the present controversy - which was an ATR 72-500, bearing Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 688 - was owned by Respondent No 1.

5. The petitioner proposed to lease the aforesaid aircraft (hereinafter referred to as "the aircraft") from Respondent No 1. The following communications ensued, between the petitioner and the respondent, prior to issuance of the Letter of Intent:

(i) On 24th July, 2019, the respondent wrote, to the petitioner, acknowledging the desire, of the petitioner, to lease the MSN 688 aircraft, with effect from 1st October, 2019, for a period of 3 years. Lease rent was fixed at Rs. 37 lakhs per month, plus 5% GST, for the first 18 months, and Rs. 40 lakhs per month, plus 5% GST for the remaining 18 months. Additionally, the letter noted that the petitioner would have to pay Maintenance Reserves, to the respondent, @ US $400 per flying cycle/flying hour.

(ii) On 19th August, 2019, the respondent wrote, to the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to communicate with the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and enquire regarding the progress of the application, submitted for import of the aforesaid aircraft.

(iii) The petitioner responded, on the same day, i.e. 19th August, 2019, stating that its main concern was regarding the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the DGCA.

(iv) To this, the respondent replied, again on the very same day, i.e. 19th August, 2019, stating that the aircraft would be issued with a valid Certificate of Airworthiness (CoA).

6. On 2nd September, 2019, a Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as "LOI") was issued by the respondent to the petitioner, containing, inter alia, the following covenants:

(i) The petitioner would accept the aircraft with a valid CoA issued by the Isle of Man Aircraft Registry (IOMAR).

(ii) It was the petitioner''s responsibility to ensure that the aircraft was registered with the DGCA, showing the respondent as the owner/lessor, and the petitioner as its operator/lessee.

(iii) The term of lease was to commence with the delivery of the aircraft, and was to continue for 36 months.

(iv) The schedule of payment of lease rent was set out, along with the covenant that the petitioner would have to pay applicable Maintenance Reserves, as per the aircraft''s monthly utilisation, for every flight hours/flight cycle of usage. The LOI also set out the deposits that were required to be made by the petitioner, and the stages at which they were required to be made.

(v) Failure, on the part of the petitioner, to lease the aircraft, after execution of the Lease Agreement (to be executed subsequently), would entitle the petitioner to