Mere Branch Office or Assets Without Transactional Nexus Doesn't Confer S.9 Jurisdiction; Unliquidated Damages Not 'Debt' For Pre-Award Security: Delhi High Court - 2025-07-09

Delhi High Court Denies Pre-Award Security in USD 2.7M Coal Dispute, Cites Lack of Jurisdiction and Nature of Unliquidated Damages

New Delhi: In a significant ruling on interim measures under arbitration law, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking security of approximately USD 2.77 million (₹23.34 Crores) in a coal supply dispute. Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the respondent's Delhi branch office had no connection to the transaction. Furthermore, the court clarified that a claim for unliquidated damages does not constitute a "debt" until it is formally adjudicated, and thus cannot be secured pre-emptively without satisfying the stringent conditions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case, Belvedere Resources DMCC vs OCL Iron and Steel Ltd , originated from a contract for the sale of coal negotiated in October 2022. The petitioner, UAE-based Belvedere Resources, claimed that a binding contract was formed with S.M. Niryat Pvt. Ltd. (SMN) through WhatsApp and email exchanges, incorporating a Standard Coal Trading Agreement (SCoTA) which provided for arbitration in Singapore.

Belvedere alleged that after it had nominated a vessel ( MV GLYFADA ) to perform the contract, SMN wrongfully cancelled "the deal" on November 15, 2022. Subsequently, SMN amalgamated with OCL Iron and Steel Ltd (OCL). Belvedere initiated arbitration and filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Delhi High Court, seeking an order for OCL to furnish security for the losses it allegedly suffered.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Submissions (Belvedere Resources): - A binding contract and arbitration agreement existed, evidenced by extensive email and WhatsApp communication, even without a formal signed document. - OCL, as the successor to SMN, inherited all its liabilities. - The Delhi High Court has jurisdiction because OCL maintains a corporate office in Delhi, as shown on its BSE/NSE filings, and holds significant assets (shares worth ₹423.41 crores in a company with a Delhi office). - There was a real risk of the arbitral award being a "paper decree" due to OCL’s precarious financial health, evidenced by its recent emergence from insolvency proceedings and its assets being heavily mortgaged.

Respondent's Submissions (OCL Iron and Steel): - No valid or concluded arbitration agreement existed between the parties. - The Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. OCL's Delhi office was not involved in the transaction, which was handled from Kolkata. The mere presence of a branch office or assets does not confer jurisdiction for a money claim under the CPC. - The petitioner's claim was for unliquidated damages, which is not a "debt" and cannot be secured until adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal. - The petitioner failed to make out a case under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC, as there was no evidence that OCL was dissipating assets with the intent to obstruct a future award.

Court's Analysis and Findings

Justice Jasmeet Singh framed three key issues for determination: the existence of an arbitration agreement, territorial jurisdiction, and the entitlement to security.

1. On the Arbitration Agreement: The court found a valid arbitration agreement existed. Referring to the exchange of emails and WhatsApp messages where the SCoTA (containing the arbitration clause) was shared and discussed, the court held that Section 7(4)(b) of the Act was satisfied. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd. , the judge noted that a formal signature is not essential, and an agreement can be inferred from the conduct and communication between parties.

"The above correspondence leaves no room for doubt that the arbitration agreement was contained in the exchange of email and WhatsApp communications between the parties, and hence, there is an existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties."

2. On Territorial Jurisdiction: This proved to be the decisive issue. The court held that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. While acknowledging that OCL prima facie had a branch office in Delhi, the court emphasized that this alone was not sufficient.

"Mere existence of a branch office which, prima facie, had nothing to do with the transaction in question will not give Delhi, jurisdiction to entertain the present petition."

The court observed that all communications regarding the contract originated from OCL’s Kolkata office. It also dismissed the argument that the location of assets (shares) could be a basis for jurisdiction in a money claim, stating such a principle applies to execution proceedings, not the institution of the case itself.

3. On the Merits of Granting Security: Despite finding no jurisdiction, the court proceeded to analyze the merits of the petitioner's claim for security. It drew a firm line between a claim for damages and an adjudicated debt, relying on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry (1974) .

"The law is well settled that a claim for unliquidated damages does not give rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated and damages assessed by a decree or order of a Court or other adjudicatory authority."

The court ruled that a breach of contract only gives the aggrieved party a right to sue for damages, not an immediate right to a specific sum of money. The pecuniary liability arises only after a court or tribunal determines liability and assesses the quantum.

Further, the court equated the petitioner's prayer to an attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC. It reiterated that this "drastic and extraordinary" power cannot be used to convert an unsecured claim into a secured one. To grant such relief, the petitioner must establish not only a strong prima facie case but also that the respondent is actively trying to dispose of assets with the intent to defeat the execution of a future award. The court found no such evidence against OCL.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the petition, concluding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction and, in any event, the petitioner had failed to make out a case for the extraordinary relief of pre-award security. The court's observations were clarified to be prima facie for the purpose of the Section 9 petition and will not influence the final arbitration proceedings.