The High Court dismissed a commercial arbitration petition seeking interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to secure enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. The Petitioner sought deposit of USD 11,079,802.58 and injunctive reliefs against Respondent No.1's vessel MV HALANI-6. The Court found that the vessel had been sold prior to filing of the Petition, making the reliefs infructuous. The Court held that the Petitioner had alternative remedies available and was barred by principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata from seeking Section 9 relief. The Court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of Indian courts in foreign-seated arbitrations and the requirement of maintaining arbitral proceedings for Section 9 applications.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking deposit of awarded sum and injunctive reliefs to secure a foreign arbitral award -- The Court held that the vessel MV HALANI-6, which was the subject matter of the Petition, had already been sold on 21 March 2025, prior to the filing of the Petition on 30 July 2025 -- The Court found that the Petitioner had alternative remedies available under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for attachment before judgment and under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) -- The Court observed that the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata applied as the Petitioner had not raised the issue of Respondent No.1's financial condition during arbitral proceedings -- The Court noted that the doctrine of election barred the Petitioner from seeking relief under Section 9 when other remedies were available -- The Court emphasized that Section 9 relief requires existence of arbitral proceedings or post-award stage and that Indian courts have limited jurisdiction in foreign-seated arbitrations
The High Court dismissed the Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 727 of 2025, holding that the reliefs sought were infructuous as the vessel had been sold prior to filing of the Petition and the Petitioner was barred by principles of res judicata and had alternative remedies available
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 80
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 727 of 2025
Date of Decision: 2026-01-21
Case Title: The Issue of Consideration was whether the Petitioner was entitled to reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for securing a foreign arbitral award when the vessel had already been sold prior to filing of the Petition and the Petitioner had alternative remedies available
Before Judge: Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-OS:1624
Advocate(s): Mr. Prashant Pratap, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sneha Goud, Ms. Lavanya Chopra i/b Bose & Mitra & Co. for Petitioner, Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Pratik Amin, Mr. Harsh Agarwal i/b Pratik Amin Associates for Respondent No. 1, Mr. Cyrus Ardheshir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sujit Lahoti, Mr. Mahesh Dube, Mr. Tejesvi Nakashi, Mr. Haaris Koradia i/b Sujit Lahoti & Associates for Respondent No. 2
Appellant: Telford Marine DMCC
Respondent: Bhambhani Shipping Limited and Another
Nature of Litigation: Commercial Arbitration Petition seeking interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Remedy Sought: Petitioner seeking deposit of awarded sum USD 11,079,802.58, disclosure of vessel location and ownership status, injunction against dealing with vessel, disclosure of assets, attachment of properties, and ad-interim reliefs
Filing Reason: Petitioner apprehended Respondent No.1 would sell its only asset, vessel MV HALANI-6, to avoid paying arbitral award
Previous Decisions: Arbitral Tribunal published first award on 31 October 2024 rejecting Respondent's counterclaims, second partial award on 25 June 2025 awarding USD 11,079,802.58 plus interest to Petitioner
Issues: Whether the Petitioner was entitled to reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act when the vessel had been sold prior to filing of the Petition Whether principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata barred the Petitioner from seeking Section 9 relief Whether the Petitioner had alternative remedies available under the law
Submissions/Arguments: Petitioner argued Respondent No.1 was making consistent losses and had only one asset, vessel MV HALANI-6, which it might sell to avoid award payment Respondent No.1 submitted vessel was already sold to Delta Maritime on 21 March 2025, prior to Petition filing
Ratio Decidendi: Section 9 of the Arbitration Act requires existence of arbitral proceedings or post-award stage for grant of interim measures -- Principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata apply to arbitration proceedings -- Doctrine of election bars parties from seeking relief under Section 9 when other remedies are available -- Indian courts have limited jurisdiction in foreign-seated arbitrations -- Sale of subject matter asset prior to filing renders Section 9 relief infructuous
Judgment Excerpts: This is a post-foreign award Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking deposit of the awarded sum and for restraining the Respondent from selling the vessel On 19 September 2025, this Court recorded submissions made on behalf of Respondent No.1 that the vessel MV HALANI-6 was already sold to a company named Delta Maritime on 21 March 2025
Procedural History: Contract entered on 27 June 2022 -- Incident occurred on 29 September 2022 -- Disputes referred to Arbitral Tribunal -- First award published on 31 October 2024 -- Second partial award published on 25 June 2025 -- Demand letters sent on 9 July 2025 and 23 July 2025 -- Vessel sold on 21 March 2025 -- Petition filed on 30 July 2025 -- Hearing on 19 September 2025 -- Judgment reserved on 9 January 2026 -- Judgment pronounced on 21 January 2026
