JUDGMENT

I.A. No. 7248/2017 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC), 9068/2017 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) and 9069/2017 (under Section 45 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996)

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff GMR Energy Limited (in short `GMR Energy') against Dossan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (in short `Doosan India'), the sole contesting defendant being the defendant No.1 and GMR Chhattisgarh Energy Limited (in short `GCEL') and GMR Infrastructure Ltd. (in short `GIL'), proforma defendants impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. In the suit GMR Energy inter alia seeks a decree of permanent injunction restraining Doosan India and its representatives, agents etc. from instituting or continuing or proceeding with arbitration proceeding against GMR Energy before the Singapore International Arbitral Centre (SIAC) being SIAC Arbitration No. 316/2016 (Arb. 316/16/ACU). SIAC Arbitration No. 316/2016 is based on the three agreements between Doosan India and GCEL all dated 22nd January, 2010 (for convenience `EPC agreements' dated 22nd January, 2010) being (i) the Agreement for Civil Works, Erection, Testing and Commissioning (in short `CWETC Agreement') executed between GCEL and Doosan India; (ii) the Onshore Supply Agreement executed between GCEL and Doosan India; (iii) the BTG Equipment Supply Agreement (in short `Offshore Supply Agreement') also executed between GCEL and Doosan India; and (iv) the Corporate Guarantee dated 17th December, 2013 (in short `Corporate Guarantee') executed between GCEL, GIL and Doosan India besides the two Memorandum of Understandings (in short the two `MOUs') between Doosan India and GMR Energy dated 1st July, 2015 and 30th October, 2015

2. Basing its claim on the three agreements, that is, EPC agreements dated 22nd January, 2010, the Corporate Guarantee dated 17th December, 2013 and the two MOUs, Doosan India sent a notice of arbitration dated 11th December, 2016 to GIL as first respondent, GMR Energy as second respondent and GCEL as third respondent seeking enforcement of the liability of the three respondents therein jointly and severally towards Doosan India, GCEL being liable in terms of three EPC agreements, GIL in terms of the Corporate Guarantee and GMR Energy, though not a party to the three EPC Agreements and the Corporate Guarantee, but by virtue of the two MOUs, common family governance, transfer of shareholding and being the alter ego of GCEL and GIL. In the plaint GMR Energy claims that since it was not a party to the three EPC agreements or the Corporate Guarantee which contained arbitration clause, it responded to the correspondence received from SIAC, objecting to its being arrayed as a party and sought discharge of GMR Energy as a party, respondent and termination of the reference, wrongfully and incorrectly initiated against GMR Energy by Doosan India. Since SIAC neither acceded to nor rejected the request of GMR Energy and was proceeding to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of GMR Energy, the present suit was filed with the prayers as noted above. Along with the suit, GMR Energy filed an application being I.A. No. 7248/2017 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short `CPC') seeking an ad-interim ex-parte stay.

3. When the present suit came up before this Court on 4th July, 2017 as GMR Energy was not a party either to the three EPC agreements or to the Corporate Guarantee, this Court passed an ad-interim ex-parte order staying operation of the letter dated 8th June, 2017 addressed from Ms. Adriana noting that "in the circumstances, the President of the Court of Arbitration of SIAC will now proceed to appoint all three arbitrators and shall designate one of them to be the presiding arbitrator pursuant to Rule 12.2 of the SIAC Rules." and directed that no arbitrator be appointed on behalf of GMR Energy till the next date of hearing which interim order is continuing till date.

4. Pursuant to the service of summons two