IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JASMEET SINGH, J.
Rescom Mineral Trading Fze - Appellant
Vs.
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited & Anr. - Respondent
O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 402 OF 2024 & CCP(O) 5 OF 2025, I.A. 582 Of 2025, I.A. 4997 Of 2025
Decided On : 28-08-2025
JUDGMENT :
JASMEET SINGH, J.
1. This is a petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking the following prayers:-
“(i) Pass an order directing Respondent No. 1 to secure the Petitioner’s claim by furnishing security in the form of a cash deposit or an unconditional Bank Guarantee of a nationalized bank of an amount totaling USD 1,65,35,071.76 equivalent to INR 1,39,01,03,482.86 together with interest at 18% p.a. hereof till the realisation of its claim by the Petitioner; or
(ii) Pass an order directing status quo, attachment, preservation, interim custody, or sale of the stock of approximately 81,300 MT of freshly mined and washed blackwater soft coking coal belonging to Respondent No. I and lying/incoming at the port and harbour of Respondent No. 2; and/or
(iii) Pass an order of injunction against Respondent No. 2 and its servants and/ or agents and/ or assigns from giving delivery, physical or constructive, or causing delivery to be given, to Respondent No. 1, its servants and / or agents and / or assigns of the cargo to the tune of approximately 81,300 MT of freshly mined and washed blackwater soft coking coal lying/incoming at the premises of Respondent No. 2; and/or
(iv) Pass an order appointing a Court Receiver or Court Commissioner to take possession of approximately 81,300 MT of freshly mined and washed blackwater soft coking coal belonging to Respondent No. 1, and lying/incoming at the premises of Respondent No. 2; and Pass an order directing Respondent No. 1 to bear all costs, charges, expenses, and levies of any kind whatsoever in the exercise of the cargo of the Respondent No. 1 being utilised as security towards unpaid amount; and
(vi) Pass an order permitting the Receiver/ Court Commissioner to sell cargo to the tune of approximately 81,300 MT of freshly mined and washed black water soft coking coal lying/incoming under custody thereof and belonging to Respondent No. 1 and lying at the premises of Respondent No. 2 in the event of nonpayment of sums to the Petitioner as set out in prayer clause (i) as mentioned above;
(vii) For ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), and (vii) therein above; and/or
(viii) Pass any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity”
2. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application being I.A. No.582/2025, wherein the petitioner sought that respondent No. 1 be restrained from selling, dealing with or alienating any of its moveable assets without furnishing security to the tune of Rs. 139 crores.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The petitioner is a company, incorporated in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), involved in activities of mining, processing, trading and shipping of metals and minerals. It primarily engages in supplying minerals, metals, and commodities to various industries, like oil drilling, construction, steel, energy, manufacturing, and infrastructure.
4. Respondent No. 1 i.e., Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), is a corporate entity of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is a Public Sector Enterprise. Respondent No. 2 i.e., Adani Gangavaram Port Ltd., is a Port Authority registered under the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021, who is only a pro forma party in the present petition.
5. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into a long-term Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Tuhup Hard Coking Coal vide Agreement No. 22.17.0008/0212 (“the Agreement”) dated 29.08.2023, which was effective from 01.10.2022. As per the Agreement, the petitioner was the “Seller” and the respondent No. 1 was the “Purchaser”, and a total of about 4,75,000 MT of Tuhup Hard Coking Coal (“THC Coal”) was to be supplied by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1.
6. The Agreement has an arbitration clause being Clause No. 18which reads as under:-
“PARA 18.0: ARBITRATION
18.1 In the event of any dispute or differences between the Parties arising out of or in connectio
Adhunik Steels Ltd. vs. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd.
National Highways Authority of India vs. Bhubaneswar Expressway Private Limited
The financial distress of a party cannot justify securing unadjudicated claims as interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act; a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable ha....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court applied the principles of strong prima facie case and weighing the balance of convenience in favor of the respondent company in gran....
The court upheld the validity of interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing that strict adherence to procedural rules is not mandatory if a prima facie case exists.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide powers of the court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant interim measures and protect the subject matter....
The Emergency Arbitrator's decision is binding and enforceable under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing party autonomy and the need for compliance with interim orders.
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.
Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act grants wide powers to courts for securing amounts in dispute to prevent asset diminishment before enforcement of arbitral awards.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.