Leila Seth ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for filing the arbitration agreement dated 30th June, 1981 in court. The respondents could not be served in the ordinary way and substituted service was effected by publication in the "statesman" of 5th June, 1986 for 10th July, 1986. No. one appeared for the respondents despite service and the respondents were directed to be proceeded exparte by an order dated 6th October, 1986. ( 2 ) MR. A. K. Ahluwalia, General Attorney of the petitioner company has filed an affidavit affirmed on 23rd October, 1986. He has also filed a signed carbon copy of the hire purchase agreement dated 30th June, 1931, which contains the arbitration agreement in Clause VI, and is as follows: "all disputes, differences, and or claims, arising out this HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, shall be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of the INDIA ARBITRATION ACT, 1940, or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri SHASHI VANSH BAHADUR ADVOCATE, DELH1, or in case of his death, refusal, neglect, incapability to act as an arbitrator to the sole arbitration of Shri BALKRISHAN JAIN ADVOCATE, DELHI. The reference to the Arbitrator shall be with the CLAUSES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS of this Agreement. The award given by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on all the Parties concerned. " ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that under the terms of the hire-purchase agreement, vehicle bearing engine No. 692-D01 67-08343, chassis No. 344- 073-67-08230 and registration No. RSG-1407 was given to respondent No. 1, who agreed to pay Rs. l,76,900. 00in 25 monthly hire instalments; the first hire- instalment being a sum of Rs. 35,400. 00and the remaining twenty four of Rs. 5900. 00each; apart from this, respondent No. I had also agreed to pay compensation charges and incidental expenses, for defaults and late payments. ( 4 ) IT is averred that respondent No. 1 has paid only Rs. 48,076. 00 towards hire-money and despite notices and personal contacts through field inspectors, has refused and neglected to pay "overdue hire money and compensation charges for late payments". It is further averred that a registered notice acknowledgment due was sent to the respondents on 26th March, 1984 and they are disputing their liability to pay. 48,076. 00 towards hire-money and despite notices and personal contacts through field inspectors, has refused and neglected to pay "overdue hire money and compensation charges for late payments". It is further averred that a registered notice acknowledgment due was sent to the respondents on 26th March, 1984 and they are disputing their liability to pay. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,28,824. 00 is due as hire mony and a sum of Rs. 72,554. 00. as compensation charges for late payment and the disputes have been set out in paragraph 8 of the plaint. ( 6 ) [in this view of the matter the respondents are directed to file the arbitration agreement in court. The disputes and differences as set out in paragraph 8 of the petition are referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. Shashi Vansh Bahadur, Advocate, Delhi. The arbitrator should make his award within four months from the date of entering on the reference. ] There will be no order as to costs. ( 7 ) A copy of this order should be sent to the above mentioned arbitrator.