Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Zion Shipping Ltd., Represented By Its Authorised Signatory Mr Madala Siinivas – Appellant
Versus
Sarala Foods Pvt Ltd – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under arbitration act (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the case (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. respondents' claim of title (Para 12 , 14) |
| 4. court's scrutiny of evidence and claims (Para 15 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. legal arguments on claim validity (Para 21 , 22) |
| 6. scope of appellate jurisdiction (Para 27 , 28 , 33) |
| 7. principles for granting interim measures (Para 34 , 36 , 39) |
| 8. assessment of prima facie case (Para 44 , 52 , 56) |
| 9. ruling on discretionary orders (Para 58 , 61) |
| 10. conclusion of the court (Para 62 , 63) |
JUDGMENT :
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.
The present appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the appellant Zion Shipping Ltd., being aggrieved by the Order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in ICOMAOA No.5 of 2024.
2. The backdrop of the case is that initially, the appellant Company, by invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act (in short ‘Act’), filed ICOMAOA No.5 of 2024, before the learned Single Judge, seeking the following main relief:-
“…..pleased to a Ex parte order maintenance of the status quo attachment preservation interim custody or sale of 1600 MT of
An attachment before judgment requires a strong prima facie case and demonstration of urgency, which the appellant failed to establish.
A conditional order of attachment under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not constitute a final order, allowing the respondent to furnish security to lift the attachment.
Interim relief under Arbitration Act can secure assets to prevent loss of arbitral awards, necessitating enforcement of contractual obligations despite procedural technicalities.
(1) Attachment before Judgment – Even in absence of necessary pleadings, Court can exercise power of attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.(2) Attachment before Judgment – Order 38 Rule 5 CPC does not....
The court emphasized the necessity of satisfying pre-conditions under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for granting interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
Arbitration awards, lacking jurisdiction, do not equate to money decrees; interim relief granted during appeal pending jurisdictional determinations.
Once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, Section 9 of the Arbitration Act prohibits further applications for interim relief unless the party shows that the remedy under Section 17 is ineffective.
(1) There is no hard and fast rule that application made earlier in point of time must be heard before application made later in point of time.(2) Under Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act....
The court may exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
