N. C. Kochhar ( 1 ) THIS application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, has been filed by the Motor and General Finance Ltd. (the petitioner) against S/shri Dwarika Nath Upadhyay, Ram Narayan Ojha and Ajit Kumar Mishra (hereinafter to be jointly referred as the respondents and severally as respondents No. 1 to 3 respectively ). The case of the petitioner is as under : ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and having its registered office at 17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi and it carries on the business of hire purchase of motor vehicles in the different parts of the Union Territory of India. Mr. K. N. Wahal is the General Attorney of the petitioner and is duly authorised to file and institute the suit and to sign and verify the pleadings. He is also conversant with the facts of the case and can depose the same. The respondent No. 1 had taken from the petitioner a motor vehicle (the vehicle) registered as No. BRC 7509 bearing Engine No. ALI 106310 and Chassis No. ALC 124991 vide hire purchase agreement (the agreement) dated 4th April, 1981 and respondents No. 2 and 3 had guaranteed the due performance of the said agreement by respondent No. 1. Vide clause No. VI of the said agreement, the petitioner and the respondents No. 1 to 3 also agreed to refer all disputes and/or claims arising out of the agreement to the sole arbitration of Mr. Bal Kishan Jain, Advocate, Delhi or in the event of his refusal or inability to act as an arbitrator, to the sole arbitration of Mr. Inderjit Gulati, Advocate, Delhi. Under the terms of the agreement, the respondents agreed to pay to the petitioner Rs. 2,23,400 in 33 monthly instalments ; first instalment to be paid on 1st May, 1981 and the subsequent instalments to be paid on first of each succeeding month and that out of the said instalments, the first 23 were of the sum of Rs. 6,800 each and the remaining instalments were of Rs. 6,700. 2,23,400 in 33 monthly instalments ; first instalment to be paid on 1st May, 1981 and the subsequent instalments to be paid on first of each succeeding month and that out of the said instalments, the first 23 were of the sum of Rs. 6,800 each and the remaining instalments were of Rs. 6,700. According to the terms of the agreement, on the respondent No. 1 s making default in payment of any hire money on the due date, the petitioner was entitled to terminate hire purchase agreement with or without notice and retake and recover possession of the vehicle and the respondents were bound to restore possession of the vehicle to the petitioner at Delhi in the same order and condition in which it was hired out to them ; fair, wear and tear excepted. After taking away the said vehicle, the respondent No. 1 has failed to carry out the terms of payment and a sum of Rs. 1,03,500 is due to the petitioner on account of hire money besides compensation for late payments and the petitioner has a right to re-possess the vehicle. The respondents have failed to repay the amount or return the vehicle in spite of notices issued to them. Thus the disputes have arisen between the parties. With these allegations, the petitioner pray that the arbitration agreement be filed in Court and the above said disputes arising out of the agreement be referred to Mr. Bal Kishan Jain, Advocate, Delhi. ( 3 ) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the respondents. In spite of service, they did not appear and were proceeded against ex parte. The petitioner was allowed to lead its ex parte evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. In support of its case, the petitioner has filed the affidavit of its general attorney Mr. K. N. Wahal and has relied on the documents placed on record. ( 4 ) AFTER perusing the contents of the affidavit and the documents placed on record, I am satisfied that the petitioner is a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1913 and further that Mr. K. N. Wahal is the attorney of the petitioner. K. N. Wahal and has relied on the documents placed on record. ( 4 ) AFTER perusing the contents of the affidavit and the documents placed on record, I am satisfied that the petitioner is a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1913 and further that Mr. K. N. Wahal is the attorney of the petitioner. I am further satisfied that the respondent No. 1 had taken on hire from the petitioner the vehicle under hire purchase agreement dated 4th April, 1981 and respondents No. 2 and 3 had stood guarantee for due performance of agreement by the respondent No. 1. After persuing clause No. VI of the agreement, I am satisfied that the parties had agreed to refer their disputes arising out of the agreement to the sole arbitration of Mr. Bal Kishan Jain, Advocate, Delhi and in case of his refusal or inability to act as such, to the sole arbitration of Mr. Inderjit Gulati, Advocate, Delhi. I am also satisfied that the disputes regarding the recovery of unpaid hire money, compensation for late payments and in regard to the recovery of truck by the petitioner have arisen between the parties The said disputes are covered by arbitration clause. Consequently, I allow the application and while directing that the arbitration agreement between the parties be filed in Court, I refer the above said disputes to the sole arbitration of Mr. Bal Kishan Jain, Advocate who shall make his award within four months from the date of entering upon the reference or within such further period which might be extended with the consent of the parties or under the orders of the Court. A Copy of this order be sent to Mr. Bal Kishan Jain, Advocate, Delhi for compliance. S. No. 1253-A/85 stands disposed of accordingly.