An appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act necessitates a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience when seeking interim relief, with minimal judicial interference in arbitration proceedings.

JUDGMENT

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 rice loaded/ being loaded on to the vessel MV BULK MANARA at the anchorage of 4th Respondents port pending the issuance of arbitration award b Ex parte direct Respondents to furnish security in favor of the Petitioner for the sum of USD 296,326.74 along with interest pending the issuance of arbitration awards and pass…..”

3. At the time of admission, the learned Single Judge on 23.04.2024 passed the ex parte conditional order of attachment of stock in trade of 1600 MTs of rice, subject to furnishing of security of USD 29,296,326.74 within 24 hours. The 1^st respondent Company complied with the said conditional order dated 23.04.2024, by depositing the security amount on 24.04.2024 before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

4. However, the 1^st respondent Company filed ICOMAA No.3 of 2024 against the interim order dated 23.04.2024, passed in ICOMAOA No.5 of 2024 before the Division Bench of this Court. After hearing both sides, the Hon’ble Division Bench pleased to direct the 1^st respondent to submit its objections /explanation before the learned Single Judge by stating their case. Further, it is observed that in such an event, the learned Single Judge shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

5. Consequently, the 1^st respondent Company filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 C.P.C., to vacate the ex parte interim order dated 23.04.2024 of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the arguments on both sides elaborately in ICOMAOA No.5 of 2024 pleased to pass the orders dated 13.10.2025, whereby and whereunder vacating the interim orders dated 23.04.2024 made in I.A.No.1 of 2024 and, as a result, dismissed the application filed by the appellant Company and also directed the Registry to return the security amount deposited by the 1^st respondent. Assailing the said order dated 13.10.2025 made in ICOMAOA No.5 of 2024, the instant appeal emanated under Section 37 of the Act before us.

BRIEF CASE OF THE APPELLANT:

6. The appellant, Zion Shipping Ltd., is a company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong, engaged in the commercial activity of owning and chartering ocean-going vessels for maritime transportation. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entities involved in the export of agricultural commodities, primarily rice, etc., and are stated to have availed the services forming the subject matter of the present dispute. Respondent No.4 is the operator of the Kakinada Port and has been impleaded only as a formal party, without any independent relief against it.

7. The appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 entered into a fixture note/charterparty agreement dated 12.03.2021, under which the appellant, as owner of the vessel MV HAN THAR, chartered the said vessel to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the carriage of 9,000 MT of rice from Kakinada (port of loading) to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (port of discharge). The fixture note stipulated, inter alia, the q