SANJIV KHANNA, J.

( 1 ) M/s. Goyal M. G. Gases Pvt. Ltd has filed the present appeal under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act against the Order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing it's application under Sections 11 and 12 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. The appellant had made 20 different parties as respondents to the said application. M/s. Air Liquide Deutchland GMbh was respondent no. 1.

( 2 ) THE appellant had entered into a share, purchase and cooperation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement, for short) dated 12th May, 1995 with the respondent no. 1. Under the said agreement, the Goyal Group of companies was to hold 51% shares in the appellant company with the respondent no. 1 having 49% shareholding. The said Agreement also had a non-competition clause which provided that the respondent no. 1 will give written information to the appellant about every business transaction it plans to take in India with regard to industrial gases and related business, with the first right of refusal to the appellant by giving two month's notice in writing. The agreement also provided that the respondent no. 1 will give due consideration to the interest of the appellant-company.

( 3 ) M/s. Air Liquide S. A.-respondent no. 2 herein is the holding company of the respondent no. 1. Similarly, Air Liquide India Holdings Pvt. Ltd-respondent no. 3 and Air Liquide International-respondent no. 4 are wholly owned subsidiaries of the respondent no. 2.

( 4 ) THE petitioner-appellant herein filed an application under Section 9 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being OMP No. 361/2004 in this Court claiming that there was breach of the non-competition clause by the respondents 1-3 herein. Vide Order dated 31st January, 2005, the learned Single Judge noticed that there was earlier litigation between Goyal Group and the respondent no. 1 which resulted in an Order dated 23rd October, 1998 being passed in FAO (OS) No. 251/1998. It was accordingly directed that the respondent no. 1 cannot enter into competition with the appellant. Similar direction was issued that the respondent no. 2 shall also not compete with the appellant. However, no injunction order was passed against the respondent no. 3, inter alia, holding that the said company was already in the same business and in competition with the appellant and cannot be deprived and forced to discontinue it's on-going business activities. However, to protect the interest of the appellant it was directed that the Directors nominated by the respondent no. 1 had liberty to attend board meetings of the appellant-company but shall not participate in those meetings in which any matter relating to filing of tenders by the appellant company is discussed or approved. This was to ensure secrecy of the tenders being filled up and submitted by the appellant, as the respondent No. 3 was/is a competitor of the appellant. Learned Single Judge also clarified that the interim order was to remain in force till the disputes are adjudicated by the Arbitrator. It is, therefore, apparent that no injunction order was passed against the respondent no. 3. The Respondent no. 3 was therefore at liberty to compete with the appellant and do business in India.

( 5 ) IN the contempt petition which was filed before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had alleged that the respondent no. 4, a 100% subsidiary of the respondent no. 2 like the respondent no. 3, had given guarantee to Steel Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as SAIL, for short) in respect of a contract entered into between the respondent no. 3 and SAIL for supply of oxygen and nitrogen at Bhilai, India. The guarantee was in the nature of financial and technical guarantee. It was pleaded that the respondent no. 4 being a subsidiary of the respondent no. 2 is merely an age