2.The learned senior counsel submitted that the first and second Petitioners made investments in the third Petitioner company, whereby they currently hold 100% of the paid-up share capital of the third Petitioner and that the third Petitioner company acquired about 77.04% of the paid-up share capital of the second Respondent company. Consequently, the case of the Petitioners is that the Petitioners are the controlling shareholders of the second Respondent company and, as a result of being controlling shareholders, they are entitled to appoint directors and take over the management of the second Respondent Company, if so intended. In these facts and circumstances, the learned senior counsel submitted that two petitions were filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996(the Arbitration Act) by the first Respondent herein. In Arbitration O.P.No.132 of 2019, the only Respondent is the second Respondent herein, whereas in Arbitration O.P.No.188 of 2019 some of the individual directors of the second Respondent company have been arrayed as Respondents 2 to 5. He further submitted that it appears that the Section 9 Petition arises out of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 30.06.2000 between the first and second Respondent herein in respect of an alleged loan. Even as regards this loan, he pointed out that it is pleaded in the said Section 9 Petition, at paragraph 7, that the principal was repaid. In effect, his submission is that the Section 9 Petitions are for interim protection in connection with an action for recovery of money. Notwithstanding the fact that it is effectively an interim application in an action for recovery of money, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that in Arbitration O.P.No.132 of 2019, the Petitioners
