LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV Vs. QDSEATOMAN DESIGNS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Adversaries are appellants before us in these two intra-court appeals. Adversaries before the learned Single Judge have one common plea before us. That common plea made in unison is, they are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge. In other words, while one intra-court appeal being O.S.A.No.216 of 2017 has been filed by the applicant (in O.A.Nos.515 to 517 of 2017) before the learned Single Judge, the other intra-court appeal being O.S.A.No.249 of 2017 has been filed by three respondents (in O.A.Nos.515 to 517 of 2017) before the learned Single Judge. We propose to dispose of both these intra-court appeals by this common order.

(2.) Though the matter came up for admission, as respondents in O.S.A.No.216 of 2017, who are appellants in O.S.A.No.249 of 2017 were on caveat, by consent of both parties, the main appeals were heard out.

(3.) To be noted, the order of the learned Single Judge was made in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'A and C Act' for brevity). Though many submissions were made on facts and on merits of the matter by rival litigants at lis, a thumbnail sketch of facts, which according to us, is imperative and essential for appreciating and understanding this judgment, are set out infra under the caption 'Facts in a nutshell'.