1. These triple CMAs arise out of three separate interim orders of Arbitrator passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act (hereinafter A & C Act). The details are as tabulated below.

CMA No.	A. No.	Filed by	Prayer	Decision of Arbitrator
2823/2016	1/2016	Respondent	Restraining the appellant from interfering with the conduct of volleyball tournaments	1(b) – Allowed
2824/2016	1/2016	Respondent	To permit the respondent to operate bank account	Allowed
2625/2016	2/2016	Appellant	Not to conduct any Volley Ball Tournament under the banner of VFI	Dismissed

2. The quintessential points in controversy are pivoted on a challenge to the legality of the aforesaid three interim orders of the arbitrator. Short is its scope yet shorter are not the extent of arguments it invited. Broadly, the arguments advanced can be divided into (a) a preludial part and (b) the controversy per se. The first part will be a brief narrative on the circumstances that led to the appointment of the arbitrator on which there is a great degree of unanimity between the parties, and the second part will deal with the very controversy disputed.

I The Prelude

3.1 Volleyball Federation of India (VFI in short) is a registered society. It has a constitution and bye-law which proclaim its cherished objectives inter alia as including promotion, orgnisation and controlling of volleyball in India. One of its other objectives included conducting National Championship at all levels both for men and women.

3.2 The bye-law of the VFI is in classical format typical of any registered Society that provides for two fundamental governing organs in a General Council of Members (which comprises State Associations, the Union Territories plus the Service Sports Boards and the Railways) and also an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee comprises the President and office bearers that includes the General Secretary. In an election that took place on 14-07-2003, appellant was elected as the President and so were the other office bearers. They were to hold office till 2017.

3.3 The simple game of volley ball seen played in this country tasted its slice of bitterness when those who administer the game sensed an opportunity to imitate cricket. VFI entertained an idea of conducting a national level tournament called the Indian Volleyball League (IVL) a la IPL, and here sprang the begining of the disrupting differences in a happy home. Where money becomes the converging objective often suspicion seeps in to separate men and destroy the nobility of their association. In a civilised society it invariably assumes the character of a litigation. The case at hand has all the features to seek a justful place in that group.

4.1 Conducting a tournament of the magnitude of IVL required a sponsor, and the appellant in his capacity as the President has spotted a certain M/s.Sportz Life Entertainment (SEL in short) for the purpose.

4.2 While so, on 02-01-2016, a meeting of the Executive Committee was held in which the appellant disclosed about SEL. The other members of the Executive Committee however, advocated an open and transparent mechanism for awarding sponsorship rights. To take this forward the Executive Committee constituted a Core Committee of five persons to identify a suitable sponsor. This transaction of the Executive Committee was duly minuted.

4.3 On 09-01-2016, the Core committee and some of the office bearers of the Executive Committee met. The appellant too had participated in the meeting in which the appellant was specifically enquired if he had signed any agreement with SLE, a sponsor that he had identified prior to the constitution of the Core Committee. He answered in the negative and this too was duly minut