Asim Kumar Mondal, J.

This is an appeal against order dated June 10, 2013 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in connection with an application, in substance, for vacating an ad interim order of injunction granted on May 17, 2013 in the form of status quo with regard to the arbitral proceedings.

The appellant, that is, M.A.K. (India) Chemicals Private Limited, entered into two agreements dated May 28, 2008 and June 4, 2008 respectively with Birla Tyres, which is a unit of Kesoram Industries Limited, for manufacturing of tyre flaps and for manufacturing of motorcycle tubes.

The terms of the agreements are similar.

We are concerned in this appeal with the Arbitration clauses.

The clauses 13 of the arbitration agreements run as under:

“If any time, any question or difference or dispute whatsoever shall arise between parties arising out of or in connection with this contract, the parties thereto shall use their best efforts to settle such question or difference or dispute amicably by mutual negotiations”.

Deepak Tandon, the defendant no. 1, joined Kesoram Industries Limited in 1991 and, subsequently, he became the President of the Tyre Unit of the said company some time in January, 2010. He was, thereafter, appointed as the whole time Director of the company. However, Deepak Tandon resigned on April 14, 2011. Since disputes and differences cropped up between the parties, the appellant filed applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applications were registered as A. P. NO. 995 of 2011 and A. P. No. 996 of 2011 respectively.

Both the applications were listed before Sanjib Banerjee, J. His Lordship on December 4, 2012, allowed both the applications and appointed Mr. Bimal Kumar Chatterjee, senior advocate and the present Advocate General of the State, as the learned arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties covered by the said agreements.

We are informed that the learned arbitrator has entered upon the reference and the appellant has submitted its statements of claims before the arbitral tribunal.

On May 16, 2013 a suit was instituted by Kesoram Industries Limited against M.A.K. (India) chemicals Private Limited, the appellant herein, and some other persons including the said Deepak Tandon and his family members. The suit was filed on the ground that the arbitration clause in the agreements was vitiated by fraud. It was alleged that the said Deepak Tandon practised fraud upon the company inasmuch as he did not disclose that his family members were the real beneficiaries of the said two agreements dated May 28, 2008 and June 4, 2008. Such non-disclosure was opposed to the Code of the Conduct of a director of the plaintiff-company and was, also, against the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In the said suit the plaintiff prayed, inter alia, for a declaration that the agreements dated May 28, 2008 and June 4, 2008 were void. Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed that the said two agreements were voidable at the instance of the plaintiff, which the plaintiff has duly avoided.

In such a suit, as we have, already, indicated hereinabove, the Hon’ble Single Judge passed an ad interim order in the form of status quo with regard to the arbitral proceeding.

The appellant came up with an application, which was, in substance, an application for variation of the said interim order.

The Hon’ble Single Judge, by the order impugned, rejected such application and, inter alia, held that, prima facie, case of fraud has been made out in the pleadings and, accordingly, the order dated May 17, 2013 would continue.

Mr. Joydeep Kar appears in support of this appeal and submits that the plaintiff was conscious that non-disclosure of alleged interest of the said Deepak Tandon in M.A.K. (India) Chemicals Private Limited at best could make the agreements voidable. He submits that Section 299 of the Companies Act, 1956 speaks of disclosure of interest by a director in a company. Mr. Kar, als