Case Note & Summary
The applicant, a Singapore-incorporated company engaged in software development, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim injunctions to protect its intellectual property rights in certain software applications. The applicant had engaged respondents 1 to 5 as independent consultants under Master Service Agreements (MSAs) to develop applications including 'Amore', 'Astha 247', 'Creato', and 'Astro 247'. The MSAs stipulated that all intellectual property developed during the engagement would belong exclusively to the applicant. The applicant paid approximately Rs.2.2 crores for these services. Respondent No.1 proposed incorporating an Indian company (respondent No.6) to ease regulatory issues and represented that the applicant would receive a 38% stake. A term sheet was executed on 07.09.2024. Respondent No.6 was incorporated on 24.09.2024 with respondent No.1 holding 99.99% shares. Despite incorporation, the applicant continued funding and overseeing development, and respondent No.6 invoiced the applicant for services. However, the promised 38% stake was never allotted. In June 2026, the applicant sought to finalize the transaction as per the term sheet and reiterate its IP ownership. Respondent No.6 responded on 11.06.2026 claiming it was a separate legal entity with all IP rights over the applications. Respondent No.6 also filed a police complaint against the applicant and a civil suit (O.S.No.4261/2026) seeking to restrain the applicant from initiating arbitral proceedings. The applicant terminated the MSAs on 16.06.2026 and filed the present petition, alleging that respondents were misappropriating its IP and that respondent No.6 was a facade to abuse separate legal personality. The applicant invoked clause 13.1.7 of the MSAs, which permitted approaching any court for interim relief, and contended that this Court had jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in Bengaluru. Respondents 1 and 4 objected, arguing that the Singapore courts had exclusive supervisory jurisdiction, the doctrine of forum non conveniens applied, the petition was premature due to non-exhaustion of a 30-day amicable settlement period, and the relief sought was a mandatory injunction amounting to a final order which could not be granted at the interim stage. The court heard arguments and reserved the matter on 30.06.2026. The order pronounced on 31.07.2026 is not included in the provided text, and thus the final decision and reasoning remain unknown.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable before Indian courts when the arbitration clause provides for Singapore as the seat and SIAC as the administering institution, and whether interim mandatory injunction can be granted at this stage.
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (07) 61
Nanda Kumar, Mohammed Shameer, Manu Kulkarni, Sumukh B. Ram, Chetan Tayal
Mr. Prem Dharmani, Mr. Priyanshu Shukla, Anubhav Dudwewala, Deepak Kherajan, X Club and KSP Enterprises, Creato Club Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Arbitration petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures to protect intellectual property rights pending arbitral proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Temporary injunction restraining respondents from using, copying, commercialising etc. the software applications, and mandatory injunction directing respondents to hand over all company property including laptops, source code, and related work product.
Filing Reason
Respondents allegedly wrongly claimed ownership over applications and intellectual property developed under MSAs, and attempted to circumvent contractual obligations by incorporating a separate company, necessitating interim protection.
Previous Decisions
No previous decisions in this proceeding. A pending civil suit O.S.No.4261/2026 filed by respondent No.6 before City Civil Court, Bengaluru, seeking to restrain the applicant from initiating arbitral proceedings.
Issues
Whether Indian courts have jurisdiction under Section 9 when the arbitration seat is Singapore and SIAC is the administering body.
Whether the petition is maintainable despite non-exhaustion of the mandatory 30-day amicable settlement period under the MSAs.
Whether the relief sought constitutes a mandatory injunction that is final in nature and thus not grantable at the interim stage.
Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies to dismiss the petition.
Whether the corporate veil of respondent No.6 should be lifted to hold respondent No.1 personally liable as alter ego.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that all intellectual property belonged to it under the MSAs, it had paid Rs.2.2 crores for development, and respondents were attempting to usurp the IP by misusing the separate entity of respondent No.6.
Applicant invoked clause 13.1.7 of the MSAs permitting approach to any court for interim relief, and contended that jurisdiction existed as the cause of action arose in Bengaluru.
Applicant emphasized urgency and the need for protective interim relief.
Respondents argued that the court lacked jurisdiction as the supervisory jurisdiction lay with the Singapore courts, the seat being Singapore.
Respondents contended that the doctrine of forum non conveniens required rejection of the petition.
Respondents submitted that the petition was premature since the 30-day amicable settlement period under clause 13.1.1 of the MSAs had not been exhausted.
Respondents asserted that the relief sought was in the nature of a mandatory injunction amounting to final relief, which cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage.
Judgment Excerpts
all intellectual properties including copyrighted source codes and trade secrets, developed, either solely or in collaboration during the tenure of MSAs and arising out of or in connection with the performing service under MSAs are the sole properties of applicant
separate corporate personality of respondent No.6 is being abused as a mere facade to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations and shield the individuals in de-facto control from their liability
this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1996
the doctrine of forum non-convenient requires rejection of the petition
Procedural History
Arbitration petition filed under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Matter heard and reserved on 30.06.2026. Order pronounced on 31.07.2026. Respondent No.6 filed O.S.No.4261/2026 before City Civil Court, Bengaluru, seeking to restrain applicant from initiating arbitral proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9
- Companies Act, 2013:
