Interim arbitral order remains operative after appeal withdrawal, with no interference in ongoing arbitral proceedings.

Withdrawal of an appeal did not efface the underlying interim order, and the court clarified that its earlier observations were not final so as to constrain the arbitral tribunal. The interim directions therefore continued to operate until varied by the arbitral forum. As to the pending contempt petition, the court found no specific request for a stay or for directions affecting the arbitral proceedings and declined to comment on that aspect. The parties were left to present their submissions before the learned arbitrator, and no direction was issued interfering with continuation of the arbitral process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order dated 03.04.2024 stood effaced because the appeal against it was withdrawn, and whether the interim directions therein continued to operate; (ii) whether pendency of the contempt petition was to affect continuation of the arbitral proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the order dated 03.04.2024 stood effaced because the appeal against it was withdrawn, and whether the interim directions therein continued to operate.

Analysis: The withdrawal of the appeal did not amount to setting aside the underlying interim order. The clarification recorded in the appellate order that its observations were not final and conclusive only preserved the arbitral forum's freedom to adjudicate the dispute uninfluenced by those observations. The interim order therefore continued to subsist until varied by the arbitral forum.

Conclusion: The interim order remained operative and was not rendered ineffective by the withdrawal of the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether pendency of the contempt petition was to affect continuation of the arbitral proceedings.

Analysis: No specific prayer was made for stay or continuation of the arbitral proceedings in the contempt matter, and the Court found it unnecessary to issue any comment on that aspect. The parties were left to pursue their submissions before the learned Arbitrator.

Conclusion: No direction was issued affecting the arbitral proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The Court preserved the operative effect of the earlier interim order, declined to interfere with the arbitral process, and directed the matter to be listed before the Roster Bench.

---