M.SUNDAR, J.

Adversaries are appellants before us in these two intra-court appeals. Adversaries before the learned Single Judge have one common plea before us. That common plea made in unison is, they are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge. In other words, while one intra-court appeal being O.S.A.No.216 of 2017 has been filed by the applicant (in O.A.Nos.515 to 517 of 2017) before the learned Single Judge, the other intra-court appeal being O.S.A.No.249 of 2017 has been filed by three respondents (in O.A.Nos.515 to 517 of 2017) before the learned Single Judge. We propose to dispose of both these intra-court appeals by this common order.

2. Though the matter came up for admission, as respondents in O.S.A.No.216 of 2017, who are appellants in O.S.A.No.249 of 2017 were on caveat, by consent of both parties, the main appeals were heard out.

3. To be noted, the order of the learned Single Judge was made in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'A and C Act' for brevity). Though many submissions were made on facts and on merits of the matter by rival litigants at lis, a thumbnail sketch of facts, which according to us, is imperative and essential for appreciating and understanding this judgment, are set out infra under the caption 'Facts in a nutshell'.

FACTS IN A NUTSHELL :

4(a). Lifestyle Equities CV is a Dutch limited partnership with address at Prins Bernharplein 200, 1097 J.B., Amsterdam, Netherlands and is hereinafter referred to as 'Lifestyle' for the sake of brevity.

4(b). QDSeatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd., Quintessential Designs India Pvt. Ltd., and Quintessential designs India Pvt. Ltd. - Apparel Ventures, all having address at 5th Floor, Status Quo, 38 Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 are hereinafter collectively referred to as 'QDS' for brevity, clarity and convenience. Wherever it is necessary to refer to each one of these three entities individually, full name of the entity, i.e., the name of the company, is being given.

4(c). Lifestyle is the applicant before the learned Single Judge, having filed an application under Section 9 of the A and C Act and QDS are three respondents before the learned Single Judge. The fulcrum of the case is an agreement dated 30.6.2014 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said agreement' for brevity) between QDSeatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd and Lifestyle. It is not in dispute before us that though QDSeatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd., alone is the contracting party to the said agreement, QDS (all three entities) are bound by the said agreement.

4(d). We are also informed that the line of activity, i.e., business of both Lifestyle and QDS is apparels and garments to put it in simple terms. To be noted, the said agreement is for a period of three years beginning August 1, 2014 and ending July 31, 2017 with a provision for renewal by mutual consent. However, before the expiry of the full three years period, this litigation broke out between Lifestyle and QDS in May, 2017.

4(e). The most important aspect to be noted is, both parties, i.e., Lifestyle and QDS state that though the said agreement is dated 30.6.2014, it was entered into/executed only in 2016. This has been specifically articulated by QDS in its application before the learned Single Judge being A.No.3176 of 2017 (vacate injunction application and more particularly in the affidavit dated 15.6.2017 filed in support of the said vacate injunction application). In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit, it has been averred by QDS that the said agreement, i.e., agreement dated 30.6.2014, was signed only in the year 2016. It is not disputed by Lifestyle before us.

4(f). Therefore, a business arrangement that was operating between Lifestyle and QDS from August 2014 was reduced to writing and codified by drawing up specific covenants in 2016 for a period of three years from August 2014 to July 2017. In addition to the above, it is also not in dispute between the parties