M. K. Chawla ( 1 ) IN a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the case set up by the petitioner, M/s. Motor and General Finance Ltd. , is that the petitioner company stands registered under the Indian Companies Act and having its office at 17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The petitioner company, inter-alia, carry on the business of hire purchase of motor vehicles in different parts of the Union Territory of India. Shri. A. K. Ahluwalia is the General Attorney of the petitioner and is duly authorised to file and institute the present petition. ( 2 ) BY a Hire Purchase Agreement dated 4. 12. 79, the petitioner gave on hire to respondent No. 1, Shri Shivji Pandey, a Motor Vehical bearing Engine No :-692-DOI-073870, Chassis No : 344-073-069631 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. Respondent No. 2 guaranteed due performance of the said agreement by respondent No. 1. As per clause VI of the said agreement the petitioner and the respondents agreed to refer all questions and matters of differences touching the construction thereof or any act or thing in regard to the rights, duties and obligations of their enforcement or performance including the failure to pay a claim arising out of or relating to the said agreement to the sole arbitration of Shri Shashi Vansh Bahadur, Advocate, Delhi or in the event of his refusal or inability to act as an Arbitrator to the sole arbitration of Shri Bal Kishan Jain, Advocate, Delhi. ( 3 ) UNDER the terms and conditions of the agreement, respondent No. 1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,51,400. 00 in 36 monthly instalments besides compensation charges and incidental expenses for defaults and late payments. The respondents undertook to pay the monthly hire on or before the 3rd day of each English Calender month till the conclusion of the agreement. This agreement also provided that in the event of respondent No. 1 making default inpayment of any monthly hire on the due date then in that case the said respondent was bound to restore possession of the vehicle to the petitioner at Delhi in the same condition in which it was hired out to him. This agreement also provided that in the event of respondent No. 1 making default inpayment of any monthly hire on the due date then in that case the said respondent was bound to restore possession of the vehicle to the petitioner at Delhi in the same condition in which it was hired out to him. The petitioner remained the owner of the vehicle and respondent No. 1 was to hold the possession thereof only as a trustee and bailee, being the hirer, for and on behalf of the respondents. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have neglected to pay the hire money as a agreed by them. As a result of this, the petitioner terminated the agreement by Registered A. D. notice dated 21. 11. 84. Till date the respondents have only paid a sum of Rs. 68,400. 00 towards hire money and Rs. 28,136. 00 towards compensation charges. Now a sum of Rs. 83,000. 00 is due towards the overdue hire money and Rs. 62,788. 00 is due towards the compensation charges for late payment and other incidental charges. The respondents have failed to make the payment in spite of the service of the registered notice. Now the following disputes have arisen which are liable to be referred to the named arbitrator : 1. the amount of hire due and payable to the petitioner by the respondents ; 2. the payment towards the compensation charges due to the late payment of hire money and other incidental expenses ; 3. Return of the vehicle No. BHQ 8771 or in lieu its market value payable to the petitioner. 4. to determine extent of liability of respondent No. 2 being a guarantor. ( 5 ) THE respondents were also required to agree to the sole arbitration of the named arbitrator but he has not sent any reply. Hence, the petition. ( 6 ) A number of notices by registered as well as ordinary posts were sent to the respondents but they avoided receiving the same. Finally, the petitioner was able to serve the respondents by ordinary process. As none of the respondents cared to put in appearance they were proceeded exparte by the order of this Court dated 17. 2. 86. The petitioner was directed to file an affidavit by way of evidence in support of their petition. Finally, the petitioner was able to serve the respondents by ordinary process. As none of the respondents cared to put in appearance they were proceeded exparte by the order of this Court dated 17. 2. 86. The petitioner was directed to file an affidavit by way of evidence in support of their petition. The petitioner relied upon the affidavit of Shri A. K. Ahluwalia, the General Attorney of the petitioner company. ( 7 ) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his help gone through the petition, the documents and the affidavit of Shri A. K. Ahluwalia. ( 8 ) BY a resolution of the Board of Directors, passed by Circular of 2nd July, 1977, Shri Ved Prakash, Managing Director of the petitioner company was authorised to execute the General Power of Attorney in favour of Shri A. K. Ahluwalia and Shri Mani Lal. Shri Ved Prakash, in turn executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the two named persons (copy has been placed on record ). Shri Ahluwalia has also deposed on oath that he was duly appointed as the General Power of Attorney of the petitioner company and has the authority to sign, verify and file the present proceedings in this Court. Shri Ahluwalia has identified his signatures on the plaint and the verification, which clearly establish that the present petition has been signed, verified and filed by a duly authorised person. The petitioner has also placed on record the original Hire Purchase Agreement date 4. 12. 79, as per the averment in the plaint, which is supported by the affidavit of Shri Ahluwalia. The respondents have executed this agreement in his presence at the registered office of the petitioner company at 17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. He also identified the signatures of the respondents on the original Hire Purchase Agreement which was signed in his presence by the respondents. He also identified the signatures of the constituted attorney on behalf of the company on the agreement together with the witnesses who signed the same simultaneously. Shri Ahluwalia further deposed that the Hire Purchase Agreement in question was complete in all respects and it was read over and explained to the respondents before they signed the same. The respondents did not object to any of the terms and conditions of the said Hire Purchase Agreement. Shri Ahluwalia further deposed that the Hire Purchase Agreement in question was complete in all respects and it was read over and explained to the respondents before they signed the same. The respondents did not object to any of the terms and conditions of the said Hire Purchase Agreement. ( 9 ) BY this agreement, respondent No. 1 has been given on Hire-Purchase basis the vehical bearing registration No. BHQ 8171 on the same date. Respondent No. 1 has agreed to pay Rs. 1,51,400. 00 in 36 monthly hire instalments-one hire instalment of Rs. 4400. 00 and remaining 35 hire instalments of Rs. 4200. 00 each besides compensation charges and incidental expenses for defaults and late payments. According to the general attorney respondent No. 1 has paid a sum of Rs. 68,400. 00 towards hire money and Rs. 28,136. 00 towards compensation charges leaving a total sum of Rs. 1,45,788. 00 This amount has not been paid in spite of the service of the legal notice nor the respondents have returned the vehicle. Because of the breach the respondents have forfeited the right to purchase the said vehicle or to keep it with them. The petitioner, under these circumstances, is entitled to the return of the vehicle. The disputes mentioned in the petition have arisen out of the agreement and are liable to the sole arbitration of Shri Shashi Vansh Bahadur, Advocate as per clause 6 of the agreement. ( 10 ) IN spite of the service of the notice of the petition on the respondents they have not cared to put in appearance or contest the same. It appears that they are aware of the consequences of the breach of agreement committed by them. ( 11 ) FROM the bare perusal of the petition and the documents placed on record I am satisfied that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for the grant of the relief in the main petition. I accept the petition and direct that the disputes mentioned in the petition be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Shashi Vansh Bahadur, Advocate. He shall enter upon the reference and make and publish his award within the statutory period.