Mohd. Shamim ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 41 of the Indian Arbitration Act read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for the grant of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents their servants and agents from releasing the amounts raised through the bill dated 27th March, 1991 for the period from May, 1988 to November, 1990 to the tune of Rs. 67,56,876. 59 P. and from disconnecting the electric supply to the premises No. A-41, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi for non-payment of the said amount. ( 2 ) THE petitioner are registered partnership firm with their head office at A-41, Naraina Industrial Area Phase I, New Delhi. They have a sanctioned load of 238 KVA under connection No. XI-1136 for manufacturing electronic components under the tariff 1. 1. P. The petitioner are a very good pay-masters. They have been regularly paying the electricity charges for consuming the electricity in their day to day activities. H. T. (High Tension) Meter provided by the respondent got defective in the month of September, 1988. As a corollary whereof the readings recorded on the Meter were reported to be unauthentic. The Respondent carried out surprise inspections at the factory premises of the petitioner on 23rd May 1988, 21st February, 1990, 22nd February, 1990, and 21st July, 1990. All the above inspections go a long way to show that the Meter installed at the premises of the petitioner was defective. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited a Meter Testing Fee to the tune of Rs. 250 on 18th January, 1990. Lateron, a Joint Inspection Team of the respondent visited factory premises on 13th November, 1990 and made an allegation of suspected fraudulent abstraction of energy . The respondent have now raised a supplementary bill for the period May, 1988 to November, 1990 in the sum of Rs. 67,56,876. 59 P. with a direction to the petitioner to deposit the same by 12th April, 1991 failing which they have threatened that the electric supply would be disconnected under Section 24 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act. Respondent could raise a bill for a period not exceeding six months under the provisions of Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act in the event of a defective Meter. In case the electric supply is disconnected the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, damage and injury. Respondent could raise a bill for a period not exceeding six months under the provisions of Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act in the event of a defective Meter. In case the electric supply is disconnected the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, damage and injury. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner. It is thus prayed by the petitioner that the respondent be restrained from giving effect to the bill dated 27th March, 1991 and they be restrained from disconnecting the electric supply to the factory premises of the petitioner, i. e. , at A-41, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi. The application is supported by an affidavit. ( 3 ) THE respondent did not file any reply to the said application for the issue of ad interim injunction. However, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ashwani Kumar has contended with great zeal and fervour that the present application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable inasmuchas the petitioner have failed to raise any substantial dispute. Consequently, there is no question of the grant of any injunction. According to the learned counsel, the only and the sole idea of bringing forward the present petition is to deprive the respondent of the public revenue amounting to Rs. 67,56,876. 59 P. The instant case is a case of abstraction or theft of energy. Hence, it cannot be referred to arbitration within the meaning of clause 25 of the agreement in between the parties. The next limb of his argument is that such a case is not amenable to the provisions and procedure as stipulated under Section 26 (6) of the Act. Since the petitioner have been indulging in large scale fraudulent abstraction of the electricity from the system provided to them by the respondent, hence, they are responsible for making the payment of the impugned bill drawn by the respondent as per the tariff rates. They have been committing theft of the electricity from May, 1988 onwards to November, 1990. The said fact is crystal clear from the various inspections conducted by the respondent. It is wrong and false that the Meter was ever defective. On joint inspection dated 23rd of November, 1990 it was found that the seals of the Meter equipment were broken and the wire leading to the Meter were promulgated. The said fact is crystal clear from the various inspections conducted by the respondent. It is wrong and false that the Meter was ever defective. On joint inspection dated 23rd of November, 1990 it was found that the seals of the Meter equipment were broken and the wire leading to the Meter were promulgated. An F. I. R. to this effect was lodged with Naraina Police Station under Sections 39 and 41 of the Indian Electricity Act. The petitioner thus cannot take advantage of their own wrongs. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mukul Dhawan has urged to the contrary. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at sufficient length and have very carefully examined their rival contention have given my considered thoughts thereto. ( 5 ) THE petitioner, it is well known for the grant of ad interim injunction must prove the following : (1) There is a prima facie in his favour. (2) Balance of convenience in his favour, (3) Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury in case injunction is not granted. (4) In case an injunction is not granted and the petitioner ultimately succeeds he cannot be adequately compensated by damages. ( 6 ) WITH the above background let us now see as to how far the petitioner has succeeded in showing the above laid down ingredients. ( 7 ) THE petitioner have alleged vide para 3 of their petition that there is an agreement in between the petitioner and the respondent for the supply of electricity which contains an arbitration clause to the effect that in case of any dispute in between the parties the matter would be referred to arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 shall apply to any such arbitration The respondent in the corresponding para of their written statement have no-where denied the factum of the arbitration agreement. They have simply contended themselves by alleging that the alleged disputes raised in the petition cannot be referred to arbitration. It is manifest from above that they did not deny the factum of the arbitration agreement with clause 25 therein. The petitioner through the institution of the present petition have prima facie raised certain disputes mentioned in para 1 of the petition, sub paras (a) to (e ). It is manifest from above that they did not deny the factum of the arbitration agreement with clause 25 therein. The petitioner through the institution of the present petition have prima facie raised certain disputes mentioned in para 1 of the petition, sub paras (a) to (e ). In case this court comes to the conclusion ultimately that the said disputes are covered by clause 25 of the arbitration agreement in that eventuality the matter will have to be referred to the arbitration. Hence, it becomes necessary for that purpose to maintain status quo till then. In any case there are , prima facie disputes in between the parties raised through the present petition which need investigation. Hence, it would be in the fitness of things to direct the parties to maintain status quo till the said disputes are resolved through an adjudication by an arbitrator. ( 8 ) THE balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner are partnership firm. They are running a factory for the manufacture of electronic components. In case the electric connection is disconnected the petitioner would not be in a position to carry on their manufacturing activity. They would have to close down their factory. Consequently, in that eventuality they would suffer irreparable loss and injury. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, in case the ex parte injunction granted on 11. 4. 1991 by this court is confirmed and made absolute till the disposal of the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in that event it would simply tantamount to delay in recovery of the amount of the impugned bill if the respondent ultimately succeeds and the petitioner fails. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent Mr. Ashwani Kumar has contended that the present case is a case of fraudulent abstraction of electricity. In case an injunction is granted then it would be tantamount to putting premium on the mistakes of the petitioner. According to learned counsel the petitioner is responsible for bringing about a situation and as such he cannot be allowed to take advantage thereof. He should be made to drink as he has brewed. There is no dispute with the said proposition of law. According to learned counsel the petitioner is responsible for bringing about a situation and as such he cannot be allowed to take advantage thereof. He should be made to drink as he has brewed. There is no dispute with the said proposition of law. However, the learned counsel while advancing the said argument is oblivious of the fact that the above defence of the respondent is simply an argument based on suspicion. It would be premature to adjudicate finally upon the rights of the parties at this stage. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances stated above, the application i. e. , I. A. No. 3850/91 is allowed. The ex parte ad interim injunction ordered dated 11. 1. 1991 is hereby made absolute till further orders. I. A. stands disposed of. ( 12 ) THE suit be listed before the Deputy Registrar for filing of documents and admission denial thereof on 4. 2. 1992 and for framing of issues before court on 28. 3. 1992.