M.R. Shah, J.

1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned passed below Exh. 39 by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "learned Commercial Court") in Commercial Civil Suit No. 90/2017 by which the learned Commercial Court has rejected the said application preferred by the original defendant No. 1 which was submitted under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Arbitration Act, 1996"), the original defendant No. 1 has preferred the First Appeal No. 588/2018.

1.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned passed below Exh. 39 by the learned Commercial Court in Commercial Civil Suit No. 91/2017 by which the learned Commercial Court has rejected the said application preferred by the original defendant No. 1 which was submitted under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the original defendant No. 1 has preferred the First Appeal No. 587/2018.

2. For the sake of convenience the facts in First Appeal No. 588/2018 are narrated and First Appeal No. 588/2018 be treated and considered as a lead matter.

2.1 That the appellant herein - original defendant No. 1 (herein after referred to as "original defendant No. 1") and the respondent No. 1 herein-original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "original plaintiff") entered into the license agreement on 07.04.2005 whereby the original defendant No. 1 as a licensor permitted the original plaintiff as a licensee to operate two manufacturing units of the defendant No. 1 being A.C. Sheet and Cement Grinding, for consideration on terms specified therein. The duration of the said agreement was specified as 84 months (7 years).

2.2 That another license agreement of the same nature was executed by and between the original defendant No. 1 and a sister concern of the original plaintiff named Apurva Vinmay Pvt. Ltd. (subject matter of First Appeal No. 587/2018) on the same date i.e. 07.04.2005 under which the original defendant No. 1 licensor permitted the said sister concern of the original plaintiff and licensee to operate another manufacturing unit of the original defendant No. 1 being A.C. Pressure Pipe, for consideration and on terms specified therein. The duration of the said agreement was also specified as 84 months (7 years).

2.3 That supplementary agreement was executed in respect of the aforesaid license agreements also on the same date i.e. 07.04.2005. That the said supplementary agreement was between the original plaintiff, original defendant No. 1 and the aforesaid sister concern of the original plaintiff-plaintiff of Commercial Civil Suit No. 91/2018. It appears that the purpose of the said supplementary agreement was to facilitate financial assistance to the original defendant No. 1 by the original plaintiff on enable the original defendant No. 1 to discharge his liabilities towards its creditors. That in the supplementary agreement which as such during the occurrence of the aforesaid sister concern as confirming party thereto, that as consideration for rendering financial assistance to the original defendant No. 1 it would be permissible for the original plaintiff to create mortgage in its favour in respect of aforesaid three manufacturing units of the original defendant No. 1.

2.4 That thereafter an amendment agreement was executed by and between the original plaintiff and the original defendant No. 1 for amendment of Clauses 11 and 15 of the license agreement for re-purchase of the assets and for provision of bonus, vide amendment agreement dated 25.06.2015.

2.5 That thereafter a tripartite agreement was executed by and between the original plaintiff, original defendant No. 1 and the Bank of Baroda dated 06.07.2006. Under the aforesaid tripartite agreement the original defendant No. 1 agreed for the creation of first charge of the Bank of Baroda on its spe