VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Both these appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against an oral judgment dated 03.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10393 of 2017, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - original petitioners.

2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1855 of 2017 has been filed by the original respondent No. 2, whereas Letters Patent Appeal No. 1857 of 2017 has been filed by original respondent no. 3. As the issue involved in both these appeals is similar and with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, both the appeals are heard together and being disposed of finally by this common judgment.

3. The factual matrix of the case are as under:

4. The original petitioner No. 1 came to be incorporated on 10.02.2015 as Limited Liability Partnership Firm (hereinafter referred to as the LLP for the sake of convenience). At the time of incorporation three partners were having following capital contributions and profit sharing ratio:-

(1)	Neeraj Kumarpal Shah - original respondent No. 2	Rs. 2.25 lakh	45%
(2)	Kamal Sewaram Jadhwani - original respondent No. 3	Rs. 1.25 lakh	25%
(3)	Dinesh Shiwana	Rs. 1.50 lakh	30%

5. Thereafter, an Addendum to the aforesaid Agreement came to be executed on 27.02.2015 whereby the original Petitioner No. 2 was introduced as a new partner with capital contribution of Rs. 45 crores with 20% profit share in the LLP. However, after few weeks from the execution of the aforesaid Addendum dated 27.02.2015, the LLP discovered that the representations made by Mr. Neeraj Kumarpal Shah-original respondent No. 2, were false whereby the petitioner No. 2 was induced for making investment in the LLP. Thereafter it was further revealed that investment in one M/s. Kinetix Solutions Pvt. Ltd. never existed and that the same was made only after the infusion of Rs. 45 crores by the petitioner No. 2, into the LLP.

6. On 06.10.2016, upon receipt of bank account statement of the LLP followed by an inquiry into the affairs of the LLP and the original respondent No. 2, it was revealed that fraud had been committed by the original respondent No. 2 by siphoning and misappropriating the funds of the LLP for his personal benefits. Thereafter, immediately on 25.10.2016, the partners of the LLP in its meeting unanimously passed certain resolutions including expulsion of original respondent No. 2. It was also resolved for appointment of one Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh and Mr. Angad Singh Atwal as new partners in LLP. Immediately on the next day i.e. 26.10.2016, the LLP came to be reconstituted by five partners viz. (1) Manbhupinder Singh Atwal; (2) Kamal Sewaram Jadhwani; (3) Dinesh Shiwana; (4) Ranjan Kumar Singh and (5) Mr. Angad Singh Atwal with new updated capital contribution and profit sharing ratio.

7. It is further stated that on 28.10.2016, LLP reported the aforesaid developments to the original respondent No. 1 - Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as the ROC for brevity) by way of filling LLP Form No. 3 in relation to the reconstituted LLP Agreement and LLP Form No. 4 in relation to cessation and appointment of partners in the LLP.

8. The original respondent No. 2-appellant herein - the expelled partner, requested the ROC on 29.10.2016 that any kind of e-form submitted by LLP may not be approved. The original respondent No. 2 thereafter filed CMA No. 111 of 2016 under the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Commercial Court, wherein he sought stay against implementation of decision of his expulsion as partner of LLP till the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. Immediately thereafter on 11.11.2016, the original respondent No. 2 once again requested the ROC not to approve any form filed by the LLP a