The appellant in both the appeals, being the daughter of late Venkateshwarlu, one of the Partners of respondent No.1 – Firm running a Theatre, filed Arb. O.P.No.17 of 2017 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity “the Act”) for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to deposit monthly rents paid by respondent No.7 in respect of the petition schedule property into the Court, to restrain respondent Nos.1 to 5 from creating any charge over the petition schedule property and to restrain the respondents from objecting to the petitioner to have access into the petition schedule property. Arb. O.P.No.188 of 2017 was filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act, restraining respondent Nos.1 to 5 from conducting management of respondent No.1 – Theatre and utilizing the income of it and for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to take possession of respondent No.1 – Theatre and also for appointment of an interim receiver to take control of the administration of respondent No.1, including handling of income and expenditure. Both these petitions were seriously contested by respondent Nos.1 to 6. The Court below, by a common order and decrees dated 18.07.2017, dismissed Arb. O.P.No.188 of 2017 and partly allowed Arb. O.P.No.17 of
