JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri. Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri. Posani Akash, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner and Sri. V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Sole Respondent. 2. These Appeals, under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, [in short ‘CC Act’] read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [in short ‘Arbitration Act’] are filed by the Appellant challenging the Common Order, dated 12.05.2023, passed in I.A. Nos. 135 and 136 of 2023 in C.A.O.P. No. 17 of 2023 by the Court of Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Appellant M/s. Sarada Roadways, was the successful bidder to establish a circular train at Kailasagiri Hills, Visakhapatnam, under the scheme of “Build-Operate-Transfer” [‘BOT’]. An agreement; “Build, Construction and Management Agreement”; was entered with the Respondent – Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority [‘VMRDA’], on 27.03.2005, registered on 03.05.2005, vide document No. 3472 of 2005, at Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Visakhapatnam. A supplementary agreement, dated 03.06.2006, was also entered. It is submitted that, the operation of the circular train was hampered due to various reasons during different periods. VMRDA bears the responsibility to compensate the Appellant for the incurred revenue loss as per the Supplementary Agreement. Apart from that, the Respondent was also to pay certain dues towards free passes availed. However, the VMRDA started claiming license fee and other charges. 4. It is submitted that the Appellant issued a legal notice, dated 15.10.2021, to the Respondent claiming certain amount with request for appointment of an arbitrator followed by other notices. The Respondent also issued a notice, dated 01.04.2023, demanding payment within a time frame. The Appellant then filed C.A.O.P. No. 17 of 2023 before the Special Judge for the Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam [in short ‘Special Court’], under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, for direction to the Respondent to deposit the claimed amount and also seeking an injunction restraining the VMRDA from invoking Condition Nos. 4 and 11 of the License Agreement. 5. In C.A.O.P. No. 17 of 2023, the Appellant filed I.A. Nos.135 of 2023 and 136 of 2023 for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondent from invoking Condition No. 4 and 11, respectively. 6. 4 and 11 of the License Agreement. 5. In C.A.O.P. No. 17 of 2023, the Appellant filed I.A. Nos.135 of 2023 and 136 of 2023 for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondent from invoking Condition No. 4 and 11, respectively. 6. The Special Court, vide Order, dated 12.04.2023, passed exparte ad-interim injunction, restraining the Respondent from terminating the lease and the build, construction and management agreement, until the next date, subject to the Appellant depositing an amount of Rs.80,00,000/-to the credit of the C.A.O.P. or furnishing bank guarantee on or before 26.04.2023. 7. The Appellant remitted an amount of Rs.26,00,000/-only and filed an application for extension of time to deposit the balance amount, which was opposed by the Respondent. 8. Both the I.A. Nos. 135 and 136 have been rejected vide Common Order, dated 12.05.2023. 9. C.O.M.C.A. No. 4 of 2023 is filed against the Order in I.A. No. 135 of 2023 and C.O.M.C.A. No. 3 of 2023 has been filed against the same order in I.A. No. 136 of 2023. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that, after the ad-interim temporary injunction, dated 12.04.2023, the Appellant was served with the copy of the Order, dated 10.04.2023, by VMRDA on 15.04.2023. By the said order, invoking the Condition No. 4 of the License Agreement, the license granted to the Appellant was terminated with immediate effect, without any prejudice to the rights for collection of all the defaulted payment from the investor, also instructing the investor to hand over the project facility and all the assets on the project site to the Estate Officer, VMRDA. He submits that the Order, dated 10.04.2023, is antedated. He submits that, it is because of the Order, dated 10.04.2023, that the Appellant did not make the full deposit. 11. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Order, dated 10.04.2023, is not antedated. It was passed on 10.04.2023 itself and the copy thereof was tried to be served on the Appellant, but he avoided to receive the same. 12. We have considered the submissions advanced and carefully perused the appeal with its enclosures. 13. It is undisputed that the Appellant did not comply with the exparte ad-interim temporary injunction, dated 12.04.2023. The entire amount thereunder subject to which the Order was passed, was not deposited. Only Rs.26,00,000/-was deposited. 14. 12. We have considered the submissions advanced and carefully perused the appeal with its enclosures. 13. It is undisputed that the Appellant did not comply with the exparte ad-interim temporary injunction, dated 12.04.2023. The entire amount thereunder subject to which the Order was passed, was not deposited. Only Rs.26,00,000/-was deposited. 14. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Order, dated 10.04.2023, is antedated, because the figure “10” is written by hand, whereas, the other figures “-04-2023” are printed. 15. The contention is that, the proceeding was back dated in an attempt to circumvent the exparte ad-interim injunction order granted by the Special Court. 16. Though, we are not entering into that controversy, but simply because “10” is written by hand, it does not necessarily follow that the Order is antedated. 17. Even otherwise, it is the admitted case of the Appellant that the copy of the Order, dated 10.04.2023, was received by the Appellant on 15.04.2023. An averment to that affect finds mention in the memo of appeal and it is also argued before us. What is evident is that, C.A.O.P. was submitted on 12.04.2023, though typed date is “10.04.2023”. The challan was made on 10.04.2023. The exparte ad-interim injunction was granted on 12.04.2023. The impugned Order is dated 12.05.2023. The Appellant was served with the copy of the Order, dated 10.04.2023, on 15.04.2023. We find that, though the impugned order is passed, after many days of receipt of the copy of the Order, dated 10.04.2023, on 15.04.2023, even if we go by the arguments of the Appellant’s Counsel, the same appears to have not been brought to the notice of the Special Court. Any such plea was not taken in Special Court, we find that in the impugned order, there is no mention about the order, dated 10.04.2023, of the Respondent, invoking Condition No. 4 of the Agreement and terminating the license of the Appellant. Even if the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is accepted, for the time being, that the Order of 10.04.2023 is antedated, but the same in any event came into existence on 15.04.2023 as it was communicated to the Appellant on that date. Then, I.A. Nos. 135 and 136 of 2023 were pending before the Special Court. Even if the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is accepted, for the time being, that the Order of 10.04.2023 is antedated, but the same in any event came into existence on 15.04.2023 as it was communicated to the Appellant on that date. Then, I.A. Nos. 135 and 136 of 2023 were pending before the Special Court. But, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Special Court and the Appellant continued with their prayer for interim injunction restraining VMRDA not to invoke Condition No. 4 of the Agreement. 18. We are of the considered view that, the Appellant’s prayer in the Special Court, for direction to the Respondent not to invoke Condition No. 4 and Condition No. 11, which had been invoked much before the Order, dated 12.05.2023, could not be granted, if the same was brought to the notice of the Special Court. Consequently, when the matter was considered and decided on 12.05.2023, the Appellant was not entitled for I.A. Nos. 135 and 136 of 2023 being allowed. The rejection of these I.A.(s) need no interference on this ground. 19. Admittedly the Appellant did not comply with the order, dated 12.04.2023. 20. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that, the Appellant will challenge the Order, dated 10.04.2023. It is for the Appellant to decide its course of action. 21. No other point is raised. 22. In view of the Order, dated 10.04.2023, annexed with the memo of appeal and placed before us, for the first time, we are of the considered view that the Condition No. 4 having been invoked and consequently also Condition No.11, no case for interference is made out. 23. Both the Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.