JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. The present petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') have been filed seeking interim measures to secure the payment of the outstanding amounts alleged to be due and payable by the Respondents jointly and/or severally to the Petitioners. The reliefs sought in both the petitions are against common Respondents. Furthermore, the transaction between the parties under the agreements is inter related and interconnected and gives rise to similar contentions on facts and identical question of law. Thus, both these petitions are being decided by a common judgment.

2. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. [Petitioner in OMP (I)(Comm) 25 of 2019, hereinafter referred to as `Petitioner No. 1'] is engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, assembling, wholesaling cars to its authorized dealers in India on Principal to Principal basis. BMW India financial services Pvt. Ltd. [Petitioner in OMP (I)(Comm.) 9 of 2019, hereinafter referred to as `Petitioner No. 2'] is licensed as a Non-Banking Financial Corporation under Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.

3. Libra Automotives Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `Respondent No' 1.) is the erstwhile dealer of Petitioner No. 1. Mr. Manreet Singh Libra (hereinafter referred to as `Respondent No. 2') and Mrs. Parveen Kaur (hereinafter referred to as `Respondent No.3') are the promoters of Respondent No. 1. They have been impleaded as co-respondents in the capacity of guarantors of Respondent No. 1.

4. Petitioner No. 1 appointed Respondent No. 1 as its interim dealer on 19th May 2016 and subsequently as a permanent dealer w.e.f. from 16th June 2017. In this regard a Dealer Agreement (hereinafter referred to as `DA') was executed on 16th June 2017, which expired on 31st December 2017. Thereafter, a fresh DA was executed, effective from 1st January 2018 for a period of one year, which also expired by efflux of time on 31st December 2018. There is no renewal since then. Additionally, a Deferred Payment Facility Agreement (hereinafter referred to as `DPA') was executed on 21st June 2016 between Respondent No. 1 and Petitioner No. 1, which was co-terminus with the Dealer Agreement. The alleged dues under the DA and DPA are subject matter of OMP (I)(Comm) 25 of 2019. Respondent No. 1 also entered into two separate financial assistance agreements namely, Floor plan Financing Agreement dated 21st June 2016 ("Floor plan Agreement") and Spare Parts Financing Agreement dated 11th July 2016, ("Spare Parts Agreement") with Petitioner No. 2 (collectively referred to as "Financial Assistance Agreements"). The alleged liability under the said agreements is the subject matter of OMP (I)(Comm) 9 of 2019.

5. Respondent No. 1 used to purchase vehicles under the DA and was liable to pay the invoiced amounts. The terms of DPA permitted Petitioner No. 1 to defer the payment for the vehicles during the agreed credit period. Petitioner No. 1 extended the time for making the payment of vehicles, subject to a restriction that if the vehicles were sold before the expiry of the credit period, Respondent No. 1 would immediately transfer the sale proceeds. Failure to do so within the stipulated timeline was considered as a default and rendered Respondent No. 1 liable for Sold Out Trust penalty. (`SOT penalty'). To secure this financing facility, Petitioner No. 1 had a charge on vehicles against which payment was not made by Respondent No. 1. The sanction of the Deferred Payment Facility was further subject to the condition that Respondent No. 1 shall provide collateral/security to secure the payment of outstanding amount and also create a First and Exclusive Charge on its stock, book debts and other current assets of the Respondent No. 1 (both present and future) in favour of Petitioner No. 1. The amount sanctioned was further secured by way of Deed of Hypothecation and Personal Guarantees of Respondent No. 2 and 3 who are promoters of