The court emphasized the importance of timely action in arbitration proceedings and deemed the appellant's conduct objectionable, leading to dismissal of the appeal and enhancement of costs.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This appeal assails judgment dated 23 August 2024, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP (I) (COMM) 273/2024 and order dated 13 November 2024, whereby an application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the 1996 Act" hereinafter] has been disallowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. We agree that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, but only on the side of leniency. The learned Single Judge has visited the appellant with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. In our view, the costs are required to be enhanced.

3. Towards this end, we put it to Mr. Upamanyu Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that, given the nature of the present appeal, if we were not in agreement with his submissions, it might invite enhancement of costs. He submits that his instructions are to press the appeal.

4. We have therefore heard Mr. Upamanyu Sharma at great length. We have also heard Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 1 to 6, Mr. Ashish Mohan, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Counsel for other respondents.

5. Mid-dictation, Mr. Sharma, submits that he now has telephonic instructions to withdraw the present appeal. We, however, are not willing to permit this as, in our view, an example needs to be set in a case such as this. Apart from the fact that OMP (I) (COMM) 273/2024 was clearly not even maintainable as filed, the appellant has, in the present appeal, levelled veiled allegations even against the learned Single Judge, castigating his findings, inter alia, thus:

“Instead, without recording the complete facts and circumstances, unnecessary, unwarranted baseless, and frivolous observations/remarks have been made by the Ld. Single Judge in the Impugned Order which have no basis in fact or law.”

“Therefore, the complete facts and circumstances have clearly been omitted by the Ld. Single Judge in the Impugned Order while at the same time the Ld. Single Judge has arbitrarily recorded selective portions of the Procedural Order dated 18.10.2023 which is inter alia, illegal, and erroneous.” (Emphasis supplied)

Though the tenor of the appeal, particularly of the grounds urged therein, is per se objectionable, a reference to the above observations, we feel, suffice, for the nonce.

6. It is not necessary for us to delve deep into the facts of the case, in view of the limited nature of the controversy. Suffice it to state that, emanating from a shareholders agreement dated 1 April 2000, arbitral proceedings commenced between the appellant and the respondents. Disputes arose, in connection with which the appellant approached this Court under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, by way of OMP (I) (COMM) 165/2021. The said petition was disposed of, by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 2 June 2021, referring the dispute to mediation and directing the respondents to pay Rs. 40,00,000/- to the appellant in four tranches. The said amount admittedly stands paid.

7. As mediation did not fructify, the disputes was referred to arbitration, before a learned three Member Arbitral Tribunal, ["the Arbitral Tribunal" hereinafter]

8. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, the appellant filed an application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act seeking certain interim reliefs pending conclusion of the arbitral proceedings. Arguments on the said application were reserved by the Arbitral Tribunal on 10 August 2023.

9. It appears that, on the date when the orders were reserved by the Arbitral Tribunal on the Section 17 application of the appellant, an application by some of the respondents under Section 16 of the 1996 Act was already pending. By order dated 22 September 2023, the Arbitral Tribunal deferred orders on both the applications awaiting the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 1 SCC 611 which was, at that time, reserved.

10. The order dated 22 Septemb