The discretion to appoint a Receiver is guided by the need to protect property and interests, and should only be exercised in cases of immediate danger or irreparable loss.

1. - This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) against the order dated 11.4.2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1. Jodhpur in Civil Misc. (A) Case No. 2/99, by which he rejected the application filed by the petitioners Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1996') for appointment of Receiver.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:

The petitioners filed an application Under Section 11(5) of the Act of 1996 bearing No. 3/99 on 20.11.1999 in the Court of District Judge, Jodhur against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the non-petitioners) stating inter-alia that a partnership deed was executed between the petitioners and non-petitioners on 1.4.1996 and by that partnership deed, a firm came into existence known as "M/s Hotel Marudhar" having its principal place of business at Jodhpur and Branch at Mount Abut District Sirohi. The said partnership was at Will, as it is evident from the condition No. 4 of that partnership deed. The petitioners through notice dated 26.11.1998 purported to have been given under the provisions of Section 43 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 dissolved the firm with effect from 30.11.1998 and according to the petitioners, that notice was served on the non-petitioners. Since in the partnership deed there was clause No. 11 to the effect that in case of any dispute between the partners or their legal representatives as to the interpretation of this deed or anything arising out of the business of the firm, the matter shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory substitution or modification thereof for the time being in force, therefore, this application was filed by the petitioners Under Section 11(5) of the Act of 1996 in order to settle all the disputes pertaining to the firm in question and it was prayed that Arbitrator be appointed.
In that application, the learned District Judge, Jodhpur vide order dated 13.4.2000 appointed Shri Vasu Deo Vyas as Arbitrator and later on, appointment of Shri Vasu Deo Vyas as Arbitrator was challenged in the lower court and that matter is still pending. This is one of the aspects of the matter.Simultaneously, the petitioners filed an application Under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 stating inter-alia that even after the dissolution of the firm with effect from 30.11.1998, the non-petitioners are still carrying on business, though they should have stopped the business and all the accounts books pertaining to the firm in question should have been sealed and they should have been made available before the Arbitrator so that he could decide the matter rightly. It was further stated in the application that not only this, the non-petitioners are not ready even to prepare the list of all the properties whether movable and immovable belonging to the firm and are using the properties of the firm for their personal interest and benefits and thus, causing loss to the properties of the firm and besides this, they have not even filed reply to the proceedings pertaining to appointment of Arbitrator and thus, they are not cooperating. In these circumstances, there is apprehension that non-petitioners would misuse the properties of the firm and would cause loss to the firm and, therefore, it was prayed that a Receiver be appointed and all the properties including accounts books belonging to M/s Hotel Marudhar, Jodhpur and its Branch at Mount Abu be handed over to the Receiver and whole management of the business pertaining to the firm be also handed over to the Receiver and the Receiver be asked to prepare inventory lists and produce the same in the Court.This application which was filed by the petitioners Under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 was contested by the non-petitioners by filing a detailed reply. In the said reply, it was submitted by the non-peti