Section 9 Petition – Interim relief – SIAC Foreign Award – Section 37 appeal
Share holders agreement (SHA) dated 12.5.2017 between the appellants and the respondent nos.1 to 5.
The disputes were referred to Singapore International Arbitration Chamber (SIAC).
On 1.6.2023, the Partial Award was passed upholding termination of SHA and obligation of the appellants to purchase shares of respondent nos.1 and 2. On 1.9.2023, the Cost Award for Rs.9 crores in favour of the respondent nos.1 and 2 was passed. On 13.3.2024, the High Court of Delhi allowed section 49 petition of the respondent nos.1 and 2 for enforcement of said awards.
On 14.3.2024, the Emergency Arbitrator directed the respondent nos.1 to 3 to furnish irrevocable bank guarantee of Rs.145 crores.
On 13.8.2024, the respondent nos.1 and 2 filed section 9 petition in the High Court of Bombay.
Meanwhile, Final Award dated 2.10.2024 was passed.
On 8.10.2024, the learned Single Judge granted the reliefs of injunction directions. In section 37 appeal, it was HELD
That passing of the Final Award shortly prior to the decision of section 9 petition would not have the effect of rendering the section 9 proceedings infructuous. Jurisdiction of section 9 can be invoked either before, during pendency of arbitral proceedings and even after the Award till it is enforced. In fact, the relief in section 9 petition was until the Award is enforced.
In view of section 9(1)(ii)(b), the direction to furnish security for the claim amount could not be treated to be equivalent to the enforcement of the award. Any remedy sought to secure the award or a prohibitory order to secure the the award cannot be treated as a step in aid of execution.
When an interlocutory proceedings of section 9 petition is pending before a different forum which is not seized of the main proceedings, such proceeding can continue as having been made on a stand-alone basis and it need not be necessarily made co-terminus with the main proceedings.
The Petitioners have claimed interim relief by way of security deposit of Rs.145 crores as per the valuation report or to furnish irrevocable bank guarantee for the said sum, pending hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceedings and the enforcement of the arbitral award and other interim reliefs.
The respondents objected to the maintainability of section 9 petition on the ground that it is not applicable to the international commercial arbitrations and the arbitration place at Singapore.
HELD that there must be specific Agreement between parties to oust jurisdiction of the High Court to grant relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The interim reliefs to furnish irrevocable bank guarantee of Rs.145 crores, interim injunction and to disclose the assets were granted.
Judgment dated 26.3.2025 of the High Court of Bombay (OS) in Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No.32551 of 2024 of Ebix Cash World Money Vs. Ashok Kumar Goel and others with connected matters
