The court's power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is wide and encompasses mandatory interim measures, including the production of records, to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and ensure the arbitral process is not rendered inefficacious.

JUDGMENT

The present petition is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) pertaining to disputes that have arisen out of the International Distribution Agreement dated 01.01.2025

The petitioner-Company claims to be a designer, marketer, manufacturer, distributor, seller and licensor of high-quality footwear, apparel, bags, accessories, etc. It is an entity incorporated under the relevant laws of the USA and the State of California. On the other hand, the respondent claims to be an Indian entity specialising in marketing and distribution of premium international brands.

The parties entered into an International Distribution Agreement on 01.01.2025 (hereinafter referred to as „the Agreement‟), whereby, the petitioner-Company appointed the respondent as the non-exclusive distributor for the distribution, marketing and reselling of footwear, apparels and accessories bearing the trademark of the petitioner-Company, within the territory of India.

It is the case of the petitioner-Company that during the subsistence of the Agreement, in the month of August 2025, the petitioner-Company came to know that some of its products were spotted in the United States at a non-authorised retail location. Various correspondences were, thereafter, exchanged between the parties, and it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had sold the petitioner‟s products to Flipkart, an Indian entity owned by Walmart. Consequently, the petitioner-Company‟s premium products, involving goods worth approximately USD 2.26 million, appeared at a non- authorised retail store by the name of „Sam‟s Club‟ in the United States, which is also owned by Walmart.

Aggrieved by the alleged breach of trust, the petitioner- Company, has approached this Court and prayed for the following reliefs: -

“a. pass urgent ex parte orders restraining the respondent from retailing or selling the products sourced from the petitioner unless expressly approved by the petitioner in writing with respect to each transaction of sale, until completion of adjudication of the disputes that have arisen; and

b. pass ex parte directions to the effect that during the pendency of arbitration proceedings, the respondent and all its agents, employees and persons in its management shall seek express written approval of the petitioner's management before selling or disposing off any goods sourced from the petitioner ; and

c. issue a peremptory direction that the respondent allow the petitioner's authorized personnel to audit its records and warehouses to satisfy themselves with respect to sale in accordance the terms of the International Distribution Agreement.”

On 14.10.2025, the petition was first called out and learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent had already sold the articles/goods of the petitioner-Company, received pursuant to the Agreement. In response to the aforesaid statement, Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company, reformulated the prayer for the interim relief to the extent of directing the respondent to produce a list of the concerns/ entities to which the respondent has supplied the articles in question.

In view of the submission made by Mr. Vinaik on the even date, the Court has directed the respondent to explain as to why the reformulated relief should not be granted. Furthermore, the Court also directed the respondent to file a reply.

Pursuant thereto, the reply, opposing the contents of the petition, has been filed by the respondent. In reply, with respect to the violation of the Agreement, the following averments have been made:

a) The respondent has denied any export or unauthorised sale of the articles outside India, and it is stated that there is no evidence linking the respondent to the articles allegedly found in the USA.

b) The emails dated 05.08.2025, 08.08.2025 and 09.08.2025 sent by the petitioner-Company, themselves adm