JUDGMENT

Augustine George Masih, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court at Gurugram, whereby the petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arbitration Act') preferred by the respondent - Philips India Limited, stands allowed.

2. Notice of motion.

3. Mr. Amandeep S. Talwar, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. Caveat stands discharged.

4. Brief facts of the case are that a lease agreement dated 25.10.2019 was duly executed between the appellants and the respondent, wherein medical equipments i.e. 3T MRI-Ingenia CX 3T, 128 Slice CT- Ingenuity Elite CT and Intellispace Portal JX/LX along with third party items of the respondent were installed on lease basis at the premises of the appellants. Appellants had agreed to pay the respondent for lease/use of the medical equipments as per monthly rental schedule which stretched over a period of 84 months (7 years), which on default having been committed by appellant No.1 in its payment obligation, a petition under section 9 of the Arbitration Act was preferred, during the pendency of which it was agreed to restructuring the payment obligation and a supplementary agreement dated 22.07.2021 having effect from 01.07.2021 was entered into between the parties leading to the withdrawal of the said petition.

5. As per the supplementary agreement, advance cheques were paid to the respondent which were dishonoured, for which proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were initiated. Appellants having failed to honour their commitment led to the respondent serving a demand notice dated 23.02.2022 upon appellant No.1 seeking payment of Rs.11,83,41,247/- as per the lease-deed to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. When no reply was received from the appellants, notice of termination of lease agreement dated 25.10.2019 was served by the respondent on the appellants on 07.04.2022 seeking handing-over of leased 'equipments' within a period of seven days of such notice. Appellants being silent on said notice, respondent issued a notice dated 25.10.2019 to the guarantors to invoke personal guarantee as was issued in favour of the respondent but without any result.

6. Respondent reasonably anticipated that the appellants may part with the possession of the equipments which are of very high value leading to creation of 3rd party rights with an intention to defeat the lawful and just claims of the respondent and to minimize the foreseeable risks as the appellants were unable to maintain the equipments which would result in breakdown and disabling the equipments leading to they being rendered unusable invoked provisions of section 9 of the Arbitration Act. Despite opportunities having been given to the appellants for filing reply/response when they failed in it, their defence was struck off vide order dated 06.09.2022.

7. The Commercial Court, thereafter, proceeded to hear the counsel for the parties and decide the petition under Section 9 by allowing the same and ordering the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the medical equipments and to retain possession thereof subject to the decision of the Arbitrator. An advocate was also appointed as Local Commissioner in whose presence the medical equipments were to be taken into possession for which police help could also be taken. Inventory to be prepared and signed by the appellants/AR and on refusal thereof, the SHO of the concer