Financial distress alone cannot justify interim relief; a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm must be established.

JUDGMENT

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 1 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 2 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 3 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”)