Case Note & Summary
The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd., a Chinese company, seeking interim measures to secure a foreign arbitral award against two Indian entities: Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly OVOT Pvt. Ltd.) and Vijay Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd. The underlying dispute arose from a purchase order for air-conditioner units placed by Amstrad with Ningbo, which included an arbitration clause. Vijay Sales had issued a guarantee certificate covering Amstrad's payment obligations up to USD 10 million. When Amstrad defaulted, Ningbo initiated arbitration before the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre, initially naming both entities, but later deleted Vijay Sales on verbal instruction from the case manager, as it was not a party to the proforma invoices. The tribunal rendered an award on 30 November 2023 directing Amstrad to pay USD 1,448,940.91 and RMB 180,533.38. Ningbo then filed enforcement proceedings in the Bombay High Court under Sections 47 and 49 of the Act. Ex parte orders for disclosure of assets were passed and later confirmed, but on 4 July 2025, the court allowed Vijay Sales' application for deletion from the enforcement proceedings and vacated the disclosure order against it, as the award was not against it. The present Section 9 petition sought deposit of the awarded sum, asset disclosure, and injunctive relief against both respondents, raising the core legal question of whether interim measures post‑foreign award can be granted against a third party that has been deleted from enforcement. The petitioner argued that Section 9, read with the closing words of Section 9(1), permits post‑award interim relief against third parties having a nexus to the ‘amount in dispute’. Reliance was placed on the group of companies doctrine and the guarantee certificate, which was said to form a composite transaction with the proforma invoices. The petitioner highlighted the overlapping directorship and shareholding between Amstrad and Vijay Sales, contending that the corporate veil should be lifted. The judgment, reserved on 14 January 2026 and pronounced on 28 January 2026, was not fully available in the text provided, and the final decision and reasoning of the court were not included.
Issue of Consideration
Whether interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be granted against a third party who is not a party to the arbitration agreement and has been deleted from enforcement proceedings under Sections 47 and 49 of the Act.
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 139
Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 983 of 2025
Ms. Kshama Loya, Ms. Sankriti Sharma, M/s. Link Legal, Mr. Karl Tamboly, Mr. Reehan Ajmerwala, Ms. Eshika Chandan, Mr. Siddharth Punj, M/s. Lodha & Lodha Advocates
Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd.
Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as OVOT Pvt. Ltd.), Vijay Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Post-foreign award petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures to secure the awarded sum from Respondents pending enforcement proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought orders directing Respondents to deposit the full awarded amount, disclose assets, and injunction restraining alienation of assets.
Filing Reason
Petitioner obtained a foreign arbitral award against Respondent No.1; enforcement was pending in the Bombay High Court, and there was apprehension that Respondents would dissipate assets to frustrate execution of the award.
Previous Decisions
Ex-parte order dated 12 March 2025 directing Respondents to disclose assets; order confirmed on 3 April 2025. On 4 July 2025, the Court allowed Respondent No.2's application for deletion from the enforcement proceedings and vacated the disclosure order qua Respondent No.2. Enforcement proceedings against Respondent No.1 continue.
Issues
Whether interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be granted against a third party who is not a party to the arbitration agreement and has been deleted from enforcement proceedings under Sections 47 and 49.
Applicability of the group of companies doctrine to bind a non-signatory guarantor for the purpose of granting interim relief post-award.
Whether the guarantee by Respondent No.2 formed a composite transaction with the proforma invoices so as to bring it within the scope of the arbitration.
Submissions/Arguments
Section 9 read with Section 2(2) of the Arbitration Act permits post-award interim reliefs against third parties who have a nexus with the amount in dispute.
Group of companies doctrine applies because Amstrad and Vijay Sales have common and overlapping key management personnel and shareholding.
The guarantee certificate and proforma invoice constitute a composite transaction, implying consent of the guarantor to the arbitration.
Vijay Sales had direct stake and knowledge through common directors, and its conduct in responding to payment demands confirms its nexus to the dispute.
Amstrad's weak financial condition and recent changes in management justify immediate interim protection to secure the award.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petition involves the issue of permissibility to make interim measures under Section 9 of the Act against a third party, who is deleted from enforcement proceedings filed by the award creditor under Sections 48 and 49 of the Act and against whom the award is no longer enforceable.
Pass an order directing the Respondents to jointly and severally deposit with this Hon'ble Court the full Awarded Amount of USD 1,448,940.91 and RMB 180,533.38; pass an order directing Respondent No. 2 to disclose on Affidavit full particulars of all its assets...
Section 9 jurisdiction can also be exercised after an award is passed, but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36... power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act can be exercised against third parties to preserve the ‘amount in dispute’.
Procedural History
Petitioner entered into an agreement with Respondent No.1 for supply of AC units, backed by a guarantee from Respondent No.2. Disputes arose; Petitioner initiated arbitration before SIAC against both, but deleted Respondent No.2 on verbal instruction of the case manager. The arbitral tribunal rendered an award on 30 November 2023 against Respondent No.1 only. Petitioner filed enforcement proceedings in the Bombay High Court under Sections 47 and 49. Ex-parte disclosure orders were passed and confirmed. Respondent No.2 applied for deletion from the enforcement petition; by order dated 4 July 2025, the Court allowed the deletion and vacated the disclosure order qua Respondent No.2. The present Section 9 petition was then filed seeking interim measures against both respondents pending enforcement.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 9, 2(2), 47, 49, 48, 36
