$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 29th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 13th March, 2026 + CS(OS) 868/2025 & I.A. 30141/2025 SARR FREIGHTS CORPORATION & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Seth, Mr. Sumer Dev Seth, Ms. Neelampreet Kaur, Mr. Abhiroop Rathore, Mr. Kabir Dev, Mr. Sukhvir Singh and Mr. Sukrit Seth, Advocates (M:9811393402)

versus ARGO CORAL MARITIME LTD. .....Defendant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Amitava Majumdar, Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Ms. Tripti Sharma, Mr. Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Mr. Abhiesumat Gupta, Mr. Kishna Gambhir, Ms. Shreya Sethi, Ms. Riya Kumar, Mr. Ishan Prashar, Advocates (M:9811088800)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

JUDGMENT

I.A. 30141/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

INDEX TO THE JUDGMENT

1. Introduction …………………………………………………......Paras 1-3 2. Factual Matrix ………………………………………………. .........Para 4

2.1 Parties…………………………………………….Paras 4.1-4.2 2.2 Booking Note.………………………………….....Paras 4.3-4.7 2.3 Subsequent Events……………………………....Paras 4.8-4.12 2.4 First Arbitration/Reference………………….....Paras 4.13-4.15 2.5 Second Arbitration/Reference....………………Paras 4.15-4.23

3. Plaintiffs‟ Submissions…………………………………….....Paras 5-5.22 4. Defendant‟s Submissions………………………………….....Paras 6-6.19 5. Findings and Analysis…………………………………….........Paras 7-99

5.1 Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?...……………………………………………………......Paras 12-33 5.2 Whether there is a binding contract between the parties?………………………………………………….…...Paras 34-46 5.3 Whether there exists a valid Arbitration Clause between the parties?……………………………….……………………...Paras 47-75 5.4 Whether the impugned arbitration proceedings are oppressive, vexatious or unconscionable?……………………………….Paras 76-99

6. Conclusion………………………………………………….Paras 100-104 INTRODUCTION:

1. The present suit has been filed seeking a declaration and consequential permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendant, from continuing with two parallel arbitration proceedings initiated before the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (“LMAA/Tribunal”), titled as ‗Argo Coral Maritime Ltd. Versus SARR Freights Ltd.‘ and ‗Argo Coral Maritime Ltd. Versus SARR Freights Corporation‘ (“impugned arbitrations/arbitration proceedings”), arising out of the Booking Note dated 04^th April 2023 (“Booking Note”). There is a further prayer seeking declaration of the Partial Final Award dated 18^th October, 2025 (“Partial Award”) passed by the majority of the LMAA as null, void and of no legal effect.

2. The present application has been filed seeking an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from continuing, pursuing or taking any steps in the impugned arbitration proceedings before the LMAA.

3. At the outset, this Court notes the submission of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs do not seek interference in relation to the merits of the underlying commercial dispute between the parties, and only seek to address the grievance in relation to the impugned arbitration proceedings. Thus, the present application is being dealt with only in relation to the continuation of the impugned arbitration proceedings.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. The factual matrix in brief is as follows:

Parties

4.1. The plaintiffs, i.e., SARR Freights Corporation and SARR Freights Limited, are Indian companies, headquartered in New Delhi and are engaged in the business of multimodal logistics, freight forwarding and chartering operations.

4.2. The defendant, i.e., Argo Coral Maritime Ltd., is the owner of the vessel – MV Panthera J, who has initiated the impugned arbitration proceedings against the plaintiffs in London before the LMAA.

Booking Note

4.3. The plaintiffs (SARR Freights) entered into a Charterparty Agreement as charterers with Ocean7 Projects ApS, Denmark, who were acting as agents to the owners of the performing vessel, by way of the Fixture Recap and the Booking Note, both dated 04^th A