RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 13th August, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of CM No.13032/2012 under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed by the appellant in Cont. Cas.(C) No.484/2011 filed by the respondent no.3 herein i.e. Ajmera Steel Pvt. Ltd. against the officers of the appellant. This appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing thereof and is listed subject to office objection as to the maintainability thereof.

2. As far as the aspect of maintainability of the appeal is concerned, the Full Bench of this Court in Weizmann Ltd. Vs. Ms. Shoes East Ltd. 200 (2013) DLT 257 has held that a decision either way on an application filed under Section 340 of the CrPC decides valuable rights of parties and therefore an appeal would lie under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, as applicable to this Court. Office objection qua maintainability of the appeal is thus overruled.

3. However being prima facie of the opinion, though for reasons other than those given by the learned Single Judge, that there is no merit in the application filed by the appellant under Section 340 of the CrPC, we have without regard to the application for condonation of delay heard the counsel for the appellant at length on the admissibility of this appeal.

4. The factual position may be stated thus. Certain disputes and differences arose between the appellant and the respondent no.3 Ajmera Steel Pvt. Ltd. with respect to a contract containing an arbitration clause. Respondent no.3 invoked the arbitration clause and also filed OMP No.632/2010 and OMP No.186/2011 in this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Vide order dated 20th May, 2011 in OMP No.186/2011, certain interim measures were ordered and the objection of the appellant that the respondent no.1 herein namely Faheem Baig who had on behalf of the respondent no.3 invoked the arbitration as well as signed and filed the said OMPs was not authorized and competent to do so, was kept open for decision by the Arbitral Tribunal. The respondent no.3 acting through the respondent no.1 then filed Cont. Cas.(C) No.484/2011 supra against the officials of the appellant alleging them to be in violation of the interim measures ordered on 20th May, 2011 in OMP No.186/2011. Notice of the said contempt case appears to have been ordered to be issued to the said officials of the appellant.

5. In the meanwhile, the Arbitral Tribunal upheld the objection of the appellant that the respondent no.1 was not authorized by the respondent no.3 and was thus not competent to invoke the arbitration or to sign and file the claim petition. Accordingly vide order dated 14th August, 2012 the arbitration proceedings were closed with liberty however to the respondent no.3 to in accordance with law initiate arbitration afresh.

6. The Advocate appearing for the respondent no.3 in the contempt petition sought discharge and was discharged vide order dated 9th October, 2012 and since none else had appeared for the respondent no.3 (who was the petitioner in the contempt petition), Court notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent no.3. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed the application aforesaid under Section 340 of the CrPC. On 1st April, 2013 none appeared in the contempt case aforesaid and accordingly the contempt case filed by the respondent no.3 as well as the application of the appellant under Section 340 of the CrPC were dismissed in default. Thereafter the appellant applied for restoration of the application under Section 340 of the CrPC and which was allowed on 22nd May, 2013 and notice of the said application under Section 340 of the CrPC was issued to the respondents herein namely Sh. Faheem Baig,, Shri Hari Lal, Ajmera Steel Pvt. Ltd., Shri Sushil Ajmera and Shri Gaurav Ajmera. However none of the respondents appeared.

7. The case of the appellant