Koshy, J.

Scope of Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act') and power of the court to issue interim orders especially with reference to appointment of a receiver as an interim measure of protection pending arbitration proceedings are considered in this case. We may refer to the brief facts of this case.

2. Appellant in this case is a partner of a firm called 'Dahlia Tourist Home'. The above partnership firm is carrying on business of running a bar attached hotel at Pampady near Kottayam under the name and style as 'Dahlia Tourist Home'. After the reconstitution of the partnership on 3-11-1998, petitioner/appellant was holding 20% of the shares. First Respondent is the brother-in-law of the petitioner who is holding 20% shares. He is the joint Managing Partner of the firm. Second respondent is holding 40% shares and he is also a joint Managing Partner of the firm. Third respondent like the petitioner is holding 20% of the shares. Investment of the petitioner as well as third respondents in the firm is Rs.3, 21,700/-. There is overdraft facility of Rs.15 lakhs for the firm. For facilitating the same, properties of respondents 1 to 3 are hypothecated. Contention of the petitioner is that accounts are not properly maintained in the firm for the year 2000-2001 and actual income and express reflected in the accounts books are not correct. Funds of the firm are misappropriated by respondents 1 to 3. So petitioner wants to ascertain his share of profit for the for period 2000-2001. It is not disputed that petitioner has requested for arbitration of the above dispute and that was accepted by the respondents. According to him Rs.45 lakhs is due to him as his share of profit for the year 2000-2001. He also stated that there is loss of trust reposed on the managing partners and, therefore a Receiver should be appointed. He further stated that as his share of profit for the year 2000-2001, he was given only Rs.50,000/- for the full year. If he is appointed as the Receiver, he is willing to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month to the persona who is having 40% shares and Rs.25,000/- each to the other respondents irrespective of the profits earned by the petitioner. He also pointed out that the accounts of the year 2000-2001 forwarded to him show that the firm purchased liquor costing Rs.16,487,667-89 whereas income from the sale of liquor is Rs.19,656,733/- and the purchase price from the Bewerages Corporation and the bills issued by the hotel during the relevant period would show that much more amount would have been received under this account alone and, therefore, there is a prima facie case that there is misappropriation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a Receiver should be appointed. The prayer portion is as follows:

"Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a Receiver for the conduct and management of the business of the firm 'Dahlia Tourist Home' at Pampady in Kottayam district till the dispute is resolved by arbitral proceedings."

3. The contention of the respondents is that the allegations regarding misappropriation is not proved. Their accounts are audited accounts. Excise officials are supervising the purchase and sale of liquor. Petitions has no dispute regarding the accounts for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and more amount of profit was given during 2000-2001 and 2002-2003 to the petitioner by the firm and the profit was only increasing year by year. All these disputes were raised because of the personal enmity regarding non-removal of an employee. It is further stated that when the application for renewal of licence was made by the firm, that was objected and petitioner has requested the Excise Commissioner to cancel the bar licence. That shows that there is no bonafides in the case of the petitioner as he has no intention to protect the interest of the firm or running the business incidentally, it was also pointed