BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.12.2014 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA No. 6207/2014 which was an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the said application, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) had prayed for an ad interim injunction against the arbitration proceedings initiated by the appellant (defendant No.1) before the London Court of International Arbitration at London, U.K. The said application had been filed in CS (OS) No. 962/2014 in which the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) had sought, inter-alia, a declaration that there is no arbitration agreement between the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) and the defendant No.1 (appellant) and an injunction restraining the appellant (defendant No.1) and the London Court of International Arbitration (defendant No.3) from proceeding with any arbitration. A declaration was also sought that the arbitration agreement contained in the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) was illegal and/or void and/or inoperative or incapable of performance.

2. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has restrained the appellant from pursuing the arbitration proceedings before the said Arbitral Tribunal till the disposal of the suit or alternatively till the status quo order, which was granted by the Company Law Board on 16.09.2013 and continued till further orders on 04.10.2013 in Company Petition No. 110/ND/2013, is not vacated. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) had been able to show prima facie that the arbitration agreement between the parties was inoperative or incapable of performance on account of the fact that the plaintiffs had already filed a petition for oppression and mismanagement before the Company Law Board in India which had directed the appellant to maintain status quo with regard to the shareholding pattern of the respondent No.3 during the pendency of the petition. The learned single Judge also observed that the dispute which was pending between the parties before the Company Law Board with regard to oppression and mismanagement would overlap the disputes sought to be raised by the appellant in the arbitral proceedings on the assertion that the appellant was well within its right to terminate the Joint Venture Agreement and refer the dispute for adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal. The learned Single Judge was also of the opinion that the London Court of International Arbitration was a forum non-conveniens particularly on account of the fact that the parties, except one of the defendants, were carrying on business in India, the cause of action had accrued in India, the governing law between the parties was the law of India and in case the Award was passed in favour of the defendants, it had to be enforced in India according to Indian laws. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that simply by having the Arbitral Tribunal located at London, it became forum non-conveniens and therefore, the carrying on of the arbitration proceedings by the defendants, when the company petition was pending before the Company Law Board, was oppressive and vexatious.

3. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment by way of this appeal. At the outset, we may point out that the observations of the learned Single Judge with regard to the forum non-conveniens argument are not correct in law. When we posed this question before Mr. Aryama Sundaram, the learned senior counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents, he submitted that he is not pressing the case on the basis of the submissions made on forum non-conveniens and would not rely on the observations of the learned Single Judge with regard to the forum non-conveniens argument. We are making it clear that the forum non-conveniens argument was, therefore, not stressed before us by the respondents nor could they ha