J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

The short grievance of the appellant is that the arbitration court may have gone against its earlier order in finally deciding on the ownership of a particular movable property in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. The appellant was the respondent in the initial proceedings instituted under Section 9 of the said Act by the respondent herein who had been engaged by the appellant for the purpose of supplying material for the appellant's theatre shows. Disputes arose between the parties as to the quality of service rendered by the respondent herein and the obligation of the appellant herein to make regular payments which culminated in the respondent invoking Section 9 of the said Act and seeking return of its goods and material.

3. A limited order was initially passed on August 10, 2021 in which it was observed that the matters as to which item belonged to which party would be required to be decided on protracted evidence and the same could be conveniently done in course of the arbitral reference. An Arbitrator was appointed by the consent of the parties, but an Advocate Commissioner was a