JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

The captioned petitions, though four in number, they are, in fact, two sets comprising two arbitration petitions and corresponding petitions for interim relief’s.

1.1 Therefore, Arbitration Petition No.662/2017, which is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as "1996 Act") is relatable to OMP(I) (Comm.) No.527/2017, which is a petition filed under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. Likewise, Arbitration Petition No.663/2017, filed under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, is connected with OMP(I) (Comm.) No.526/2017, which is also preferred under Section 9 of the 1996 Act.

2. Counsel for the parties, who have appeared before me, submitted that the facts obtaining in these matters are similar and therefore, the assertions made are also similar. Thus, the arguments advanced by either side before me qua the captioned petitions are also identical.

2.1 The only difference being that in Arbitration Petition No.662/2017, the respondent is described as M/s. iWorld Digital Solutions Private. Ltd. (in short "IDS"), while in Arbitration Petition No.663/2017, the respondent is described as M/s iWorld Business Solutions Private Ltd.