IMPORTANT POINT
The court considered the change of circumstances and vacated the interim order as the claim of the plaintiff had been decided by the arbitrator.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The defendant no. 11 to 22 have filed an application being G.A. No. 15 of 2023 praying for vacating/setting aside the order dated 30th January, 2019. Similarly, the defendant nos. 10 and 24 have filed an application being G.A. No. 17 of 2023 praying for vacating and setting aside the order dated 30th January, 2019, passed in G.A. No. 229 of 2019 arising out of the present suit. The plaintiff has also filed an application being G.A. No. 16 of 2023 praying for dismissal of G.A. No. 15 of 2023 filed by the defendant nos. 11 to 22.

2. As all the applications are connected with the order dated 30th January, 2019 passed by this Court in G.A. No. 229 of 2019 in connection with the present suit and thus all the applications are taken up together for consideration.

3. In the suit being C.S. No. 6 of 2019, the plaintiff had filed an application being G.A. No. 229 of 2019 praying for an order of injunction. By an order dated 30th January, 2019, this Court has passed the following interim order:

“On the basis of the averments made in the petition and the documents disclosed, it appears that the defendant No. 1 as an escrow agent is vested with certain powers, duties and obligations. The sale was effected in favour of the buyers jointly. The escrow agent cannot act selectively and it is the duty of the escrow agent to preserve the shares till the shares are distributed in terms of the agreement. The objection that the suit is barred in view of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, prima facie, appears to be not sustainable, in view of the fact that it is not a dispute between the buyers and the sellers but is a dispute amongst the buyers inter se. Apart from the aforesaid, the plaintiffs have contended that in the arbitration proceeding, it may not be possible to seek cancellation of the mortgage. However, this is a prima facie view, subject to hearing the parties on the returnable date. The respondent No. 1 is restrained from dealing with and/or parting with the shares of the plaintiffs for a period of 10 weeks or until further order, whichever is earlier. The defendant no. 1 shall also not part with any company related documents without the express leave of the Court. Affidavit in opposition shall be filed within three weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, within two weeks thereafter.

The matter shall appear fairly at the top as a ‘Motion Adjourned’ on 18th March, 2019.”

4. On 24th March, 2011, a Share Purchase Agreement was entered between the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant nos. 10 to 22, 24 and 25 for the transfer of 36,278 shares of the defendant no. 10 wherein the defendant nos. 11 to 22 collectively were the Transferor Shareholders while the plaintiff no. 1, defendant nos. 24 and 25 collectively were the Transferee of Shareholders. An Escrow Agreement was also entered between the parties and with the mutual consent of the parties, Shri Sanjit Kumar Singh, the defendant no. 1 was appointed as Escrow Agent.

5. Before filing of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being AP. No. 122 of 2018 but this Court has not granted any interim order and before disposal of the said application, disputes have been referred to the arbitration and by an order dated 12th December, 2018, A.P. No. 122 of 2018 was disposed of. Though the matter was referred to arbitration but the plaintiffs have filed the present suit and obtained an interim order and had not proceeded with the arbitration, the defendant no. 10 by a letter dated 29th July, 2019 requested the Learned Arbitrator to act as an Arbitrator. The Learned Arbitrator has proceeded with the matter and on 23rd June, 2023, the Arbitrator has passed the following award:

“136. For the reasons afore-discussed this Tribunal declines to award any of the prayers made in the SOC filed by the Claimant. The Claimant has not produced any evidence in support of its claims for damages. This Tribunal al