M.M. Sundresh, J.

These appeals have been preferred by the defendants on the orders passed allowing the applications filed by respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs and thus, dismissing the applications filed by them.

2. For the sake of brevity, the appellants are referred as defendants as against the respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs.

3. Brief Facts:

3.1. Though the learned single Judge has captured the facts with clarity, it would be appropriate to reiterate them to the extent required while dealing with the issues raised.

3.2. The plaintiffs and the defendant No.4 are brothers. They belong to Al Ghurair family. Defendants 3 and 5 to 7 from Buhary family. M/s ETA Star Holding LLC- defendant No.11 is a limited liability company incorporated in the Emirates of Dubai, UAE under UAE Federal Law No.8. It has got its own subsidiaries and associate companies along with joint ventures. So is the case with defendant No.2. On a combination, these entities exceed 100, forming part of a larger entity named as “ETA Group” (hereinafter referred to as “Group”).

3.3. Defendants 3 to 7 are the majority shareholder in defendant No.2, which is also registered and functioning in Dubai. The plaintiffs hold about 34% shares in defendant No.2 as against defendants 3 to 7. Similarly, in defendant No.11, the plaintiffs hold the majority shares of 52% and thus, hold control. About 6.16% of the shares in defendant No.1 is being held in the names of defendants 3 to 7.

3.4. The plaintiffs are the citizens of U.A.E. Defendants 3 to 7 though being non residents are having their address within the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant No.1 is situated in Chennai. Defendant No.8 is the Managing Director of defendant No.1. Defendant No.9 was the managerial personnel of Defendant No.2. Defendant No.10 is the Joint Executive Director and Company Secretary of Defendant No.1. These three defendants are admittedly residing at Chennai and doing their business as well on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. Defendant No.12 is also a company incorporated under the Laws of UAE. This appears to be the status.

3.5. The accounts of the defendant No.2 was consolidated with that of the defendant No.11 in the year 2007 through the acquisition of 100% beneficial interest. On 31.12.2012, defendants 3, 4, 7 and 9 gave a Management Representation letter to audit the affairs of defendant Nos.2 and 11. Thereafter, the Board of Directors of the Group re-assessed the relationship, which has become sour between the shareholders with respect to the company subsidiaries associates and joint ventures. Thus, in pursuant to the resolution, in which both the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 7 were parties, a decision was made towards the loss of control over different entities. Accordingly, the “Group” deconsolidated the operating results and financial position of certain entities from its consolidated financial statements with effect from 01.01.2014.

3.6. Consequently, the beneficial interest of the assets held on behalf of the “Group” by the individuals and the related parties was withdrawn. This exercise was done with effect from 01.01.2014. Resultantly, a financial statement dated 31.12.2016 was issued by the defendant No.11 reiterating the above, which according to the plaintiffs is only a draft though the content is not in dispute. This financial statement deals with need for deconsolidation, the decision made by the Directors of the Group and the effect on the assets held in the personal names of the shareholders, Directors and related parties. It is apposite to refer the following passages contained in the financial statement of the Defendant No.11 dated 31.12.2016.

“2.4. Deconsolidation of entities due to loss of control.

(i) Deconsolidation of entities due to loss of control during the year ended 31 December 2014.

The on-going disagreements between the shareholders of the Group had a significant impact on Group's relationships with certain subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures, in parti