S. K. Mahajan, J. ( 1 ) BY an agreement dated 25th January, 1995, the petitioner company agreed to purchase all the assets of the respondent company. The said assets included all franchise permits and licenses relating to the provision of services to subscribers of the cable system being run by the respondent as also all the fixed assets including the distribution plant, headend equipment, cables, subscriber installations, machinery equipment, decoders and encoders tape, etc. The respondent had informed the petitioner that he had 4,200 number of subscribers in its cable TV system operating in the areas of Civil Lines, Jawahar Nagar, etc. and the petitioner had agreed to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs. 2,400. 00 per subscriber and calculating the same for 4,200 subscribers a sum of Rs. 1,00,80,000. 00 was agreed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent in full and final settlement of the agreement. As per the agreement, a sum of Rs. 50,40,000. 00 , 50% of the total purchase price, was paid at the time of execution of the agreement. 25% amount, Rs. 25,20,000. 00 , was to be paid to the respondent on completion of the verification of the subscribers and cable connections of the respondent as listed in schedule C to the agreement within thirty days from the closing date of the agreement. The balance amount of Rs. 25,20,000. 00 representing 25% of the amount of total purchase price was to be deposited in an interest bearing account with a nationalised bank selected by the petitioner for a period of three months from the date of execution of the agreement and was to be applied against any claims made by the creditors including any discrepancy in the respondent s subscriber list and assets as listed in schedules A, B and C to the agreement. The agreement also contained an arbitration clause whereby the parties in case of disputes, difference of any kind whatsoever had agreed to refer the same to an arbitrator. ( 2 ). . It appears that certain disputes had arisen between the parties in as much as, according to the petitioner, though, it had paid a sum of Rs. 50,40,000. 00 to the respondent, the respondent had not been able to satisfy the petitioner as to the existence of 4,200 subscribers for whom the petitioner No. I had agreed to make payment. . It appears that certain disputes had arisen between the parties in as much as, according to the petitioner, though, it had paid a sum of Rs. 50,40,000. 00 to the respondent, the respondent had not been able to satisfy the petitioner as to the existence of 4,200 subscribers for whom the petitioner No. I had agreed to make payment. It is alleged that the respondent was shirking and evading his duty to deliver the complete business, assets and premises in toto and had been neglecting to verify the petitioner the said number of subscribers. It is the case of the petitioner in the petition that besides the respondent there were certain associates of the respondent whose subscribers were also to be transferred to the petitioner. The names of the said associates of the respondent have been given in annexure P-7 to the petition. It is alleged that to cover up its default, the respondent sent a false notice dated 10th May, 1995 alleging that the petitioner has not been able to fulfill its obligations under the agreement. It is also alleged that the respondent and its associates not only did not deliver the assets but they had also been engaging themselves in the business of cable TV to which they had agreed not to engage under the agreement; that the respondent and its associates also started interfering in the operation of the petitioner and they have been allegedly also realising the subscription from the subscribers to the detriment of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance to injunct the respondent from either collecting the subscription or in any manner interfering in the operation of the cable system by the petitioner till such time the matter was decided by the arbitrator. ( 3 ) THE respondent has filed the reply to the application alleging that it was the petitioner who had not been performing its obligations under the agreement and was trying to deprive the respondent of the sum of Rs. 50,40,000. 00 which had been agreed to be paid to the respondent under the agreement. According to the respondent, all assets and machineries had been handed over by the respondent to the petitioner and the petitioner had started its own cable network by utilising the plant, equipment and cables handed over by the respondent to the petitioner. 50,40,000. 00 which had been agreed to be paid to the respondent under the agreement. According to the respondent, all assets and machineries had been handed over by the respondent to the petitioner and the petitioner had started its own cable network by utilising the plant, equipment and cables handed over by the respondent to the petitioner. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner had verified the list of subscribers and there was nothing more which was required to be done by the respondent. It is also stated by the respondent that on the failure of the petitioner to pay the balance amount, the respondent exercised its lien under Section 47 of the Sale of Goods Act readwith Sections 148, 172 and 173 of the Contract Act and has now started realising subscription from about 500 subscribers whose names have been given in the list filed in Court during the course of arguments. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the. parties did not have any objection to the appointment of an arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. The question which have been raised by the parties relates to the merits of the case and any observation made by me may have an effect upon the decision of the arbitrator. I, therefore, need not dwell upon the merits of the case as to whether the respondent had the unpaid seller s lien over the goods which were agreed to be sold to the petitioner or whether the complete list of 4,200 subscribers had been handed over by the respondent to the petitioner, as these are the questions which have necessarily to be decided by the arbitrator. The short point for consideration is whether the respondent can be restrained from receiving the subscriptions from 500 subscribers from whom it is presently realising the same in spite of its having entered into the -agreement with the petitioner and if an injunction is to be granted against the respondent, whether conditions can be imposed so as to secure the interest of the petitioner, in case it ultimately succeeds before the arbitrator. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was liable to pay second instalment of the 25% of amount amounting to Rs. 25,20,000. 00 within three months of the date of the agreement on verification of the list of subscribers. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was liable to pay second instalment of the 25% of amount amounting to Rs. 25,20,000. 00 within three months of the date of the agreement on verification of the list of subscribers. It is also not in dispute that 25% of the amount amounting to Rs. 25,20,000. 00 was to be deposited in an account to secure the interest of the creditors, etc. Admittedly, this amount of Rs. 25,20,000. 00 has not been deposited in any account. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the documents annexed as R-2 and R-3 to the reply to contend that at no time the petitioner had raised any objection about the respondent having not supplied the complete list of subscribers to enable the petitioner to verily the same and it was only after the respondent had sent a notice dated 10th May, 1995 that the petitioner as an afterthought for the first time in reply to the said notice made a grievance of the respondent having not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement. As I have already observed above, I am not going into the merits of the case and it will, therefore, be futile to hold as to whether the complete list had been given by the respondent to the petitioner but the fact remains that till almost the end of May, 1995 i. e. for four months from the date of the agreement, the petitioner had not raised any objection either about the respondent having not handed over the equipment or about the list of subscribers having not been furnished for verification to it. It is also a fact that substantial amount of money has not been received by the respondent. The respondent is realising this amount from the subscriber since about the middle of June, 1995 when it is alleged to have taken over the system which was earlier being run by the respondent. Out of the total number of 4,200 subscribers, the respondent is realising subscription from 500 subscribers and it has no objection to the passing of an order against it restraining it from recovering the subscription from the other 3,700 subscribers. As is admittedly a sum of Rs. 50,40,000. Out of the total number of 4,200 subscribers, the respondent is realising subscription from 500 subscribers and it has no objection to the passing of an order against it restraining it from recovering the subscription from the other 3,700 subscribers. As is admittedly a sum of Rs. 50,40,000. 00 had not been paid by the petitioner to the respondent, I feel that till such time the arbitrator takes a decision in the matter of controversy between the parties, it will not be proper to disturb the status quo as it is presently existing. I am, therefore, not inclined to restrain the respondent from realising the subscription from the said 500 subscribers, list of which had been submitted during the course of arguments in Court, however, the respondent shall not realise subscription from the other subscribers whose names appear in list "a"- handed over during the course of arguments in Court. ( 6 ) IN view of the foregoing, while I restrain the respondent from realising the subscription from the subscribers whose names appear in the list "a" handed over in Court by the respondent, there will be no such restraint, as far as the other subscribers numbering about 500 whose names have been mentioned in list "b", are concerned. The respondent is further restrained from interfering with the operation of the cable. network by the petitioner. The realisation of subscription from these subscribers by the respondent shall however be subject to the respondent furnishing a security within six weeks to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court to refund to the petitioner the amount which will be recovered by it from the subscribers after the passing of this order in the eventuality of the arbitrator ultimately deciding against the respondent. ( 7 ) WITH these observations, the petition stands disposed of. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, before parting with the case, I would like to appoint an arbitrator as well. Parties have no objection to the appointment of a retired Judge of this Court as an arbitrator. I, therefore, appoint Mrs. Justice Santosh Duggal (Retd.), AB-13, Tilak Marg, New Delhi, as an arbitrator to decide the disputes which may be raised by the partics before her. The arbitrator shall be paid a fee of Rs. 20,000. 00 for deciding the reference to be paid in the first instance by the petitioner.