S.V. SIVALINGA NADAR Vs. S.V. CHANDRAPANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy between the parties in this appeal is very limited. It relates to the interpretation of an order passed by the Supreme Court in S Rs.P (Civil) No 5270 of 1984. The appellant, respondents 1 to 4 and one S.V. Harikrishnan agreed to refer the disputes inter se to arbitration including the dispute regarding the shareholding and management of the company, Madras Vanaspathi Limited under an agreement dated 8.10.1981. In view of the said reference of the dispute to arbitration, it is said to have been agreed between the parties that the appellant would continue as managing director as before, and the third respondent will be co-opted as additional director pending the arbitration proceedings. Originally, the arbitrators passed an award without reference to the shareholding, and the management of the Madras Vanaspathi Limited. When this was pointed out by the appellant, the arbitrators withdrew their award for passing a fresh award, taking into account the objections raised by the appellant that the shareholding and the management of Madras Vanaspathi Limited was not considered by the arbitrators. At that stage, the appellant filed CS No 433 of 1983 for a declaration that the reference to arbitration includes the dispute regarding the shareholding and the management of the Madras Vanaspathi Limited, and for an injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 5 from interfering with the functioning of the appellant as the managing director of the said company and for a mandatory injunction to the arbitrators to pass a suitable award including the management and shareholdings of the Madras Vanaspathi Limited. In the said suit, the appellant also filed an application No 3062 of 1983 seeking an interim injunction restraining respondents 1 to 4 from altering the position of the appellant as managing director of the company by holding the proposed meeting for the purpose of removing the appellant from the position as managing director. Though an interim injunction was granted in the first instance in the said application, final orders have been passed therein vacating the ad interim injunction and dismissing the petition by an order dated 31.10.1983. As against the said dismissal order, the appellant filed O S No 165 of 1983. In the said appeal, a Division Bench of this Court passed a consent order on 7.3.1984 which is as follows :