The court emphasized the need to balance the interests of both parties and imposed conditions on the respondent to comply with lease terms and make payments, rather than granting repossession to the lessor.

These applications are by the lessor of two Air-crafts, filed against the lessee, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with full powers to seize both the air-crafts, equipments and documentation wherever found and to remove all obstructions to enable the applicant to repossess the air-crafts.

2. I have heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant in both the applications, Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent in A.No.4806 of 2009 and Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent in A.No.4807 of 2009.

3. Under two Air-craft Lease Agreements bearing Nos.131/2005 and 110/2005 both dated 5. 2005, the applicant leased to the respondent, two Embraer 170 LR Air-crafts bearing Nos.ERJ170 MSN1700002 and ERJ170 MSN1700005 with Indian Registration Marks VT-PAB and VT-PAC respectively. These Lease Agreements filed as document No.1 in each of these applications, underwent three amendments. The amendments were made on 13. 2006, 24. 2006 and 12. 2007 in respect of one Agreement and on 19. 2005, 24. 2006 and 12. 2007 in respect of the other Agreement.

4. The term of the lease under Article 3 of the Agreements, was fixed as 5 years from the "delivery date". In respect of one Air-craft, the date of delivery was 19. 2005 and in respect of the other Aircraft, the date of delivery was 33. 2006. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to make use of the leased Air-crafts for a period of 5 years from the respective dates of delivery, subject however to compliance with the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreements and the amendments effected thereto.

5. Complaining of the occurrence of "Events of Default", the applicant issued notices dated 16. 2009 to the respondent. Subsequently, the applicant also served "Notices of Termination" dated 37. 2009, terminating both the Lease Agreements and calling upon the respondent to return both the Air-crafts. Since the respondent did not comply with the demand for the return of the Air-crafts, the applicant has come up with the present applications, seeking repossession.

6. The "Notices of Default" dated 16. 2009, issued by the applicant in respect of both the Lease Agreements, identified two items of default on the part of the respondent. In brief, they are as follows:-

.(i) Under Article 3. 1 of the Lease Agreements, the respondent was obliged to pay cash or furnish a Stand-by Letter of Credit, issued by a first line bank, payable in London at sight on first demand, for an amount equal to 3 monthly basic rent. Accordingly, the respondent did furnish Stand-by Letters of Credit, with expiry date on December 17, 2008. But the same were not replenished by the respondent, in accordance with Article 3. 1.2 of the Agreements.

.(ii) Under the terms of the Lease Agreements, the respondent was obliged to pay Basic Rent and Maintenance Reserves every month. But the Basic Rent and Maintenance Reserves for the month of May 2009 were not paid in respect of the Air-craft VT-PAB and the Basic Rent for the month of May 2009 was not paid in respect of the Air-craft VT-PAC.

7. After the service of the Notices of Default, there was exchange of correspondence through e-mails between the parties for a period of about 35 days. In one of those mails dated 37. 2009, the respondent informed the applicant of the transfer of a total amount of US$ 15,57,183.14 under Swift Nos.1090 TT 090227 to 090232. However, the applicant issued "Notices of Termination" dated 37. 2009, claiming that the respondent failed to cure the failure mentioned in the Notices of Default. Thereafter, the applicant was also informed by the Axis Bank, through e-mail dated 8. 2009 followed by a telephonic conversation, that the payments under the Swift Transfers mentioned by the respondent, in their mail dated 37. 2009, were not intended for the applicant.

8. However, it appears t