Advy Biosciences Private Limited vs Swaraj Lifesciences Private Limited

CNR No : HCBM020320652026

2026:BHC-OS:22950
carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.32064 OF 2026
ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI
Advy Biosciences Private Limited
(formerly known as Advy Chemical
Private Limited)
… Petitioner
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.10.23
12:31:39 +0530
Vs.
Swaraj Lifesciences Private Limited
… Respondent
Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Ravitej Chilumuri, Ms.
Aishwarya Singh, Ms. Antara Kalambi and Mr. Prince
Tode i/by Khaitan & Co., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shriram Kulkarni with Mrs. Pooja N. Sejpal, and
Mr. Krunal Thakkar for the Respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 22, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 23, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The Petitioner has filed the present Petition under Section 9
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking urgent
protection in respect of the Supply Agreement dated 1 April 2025
entered into between the parties. The grievance of the Petitioner is
that the Respondent has issued a Termination Notice dated 24
August 2026 and has stopped the Petitioner from keeping its
1
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

Livestock Supervisor at the Respondent's farm. According to the
Petitioner, goats are kept at the said farm and they have been
immunised by using the Petitioner's own immunogens and
protocols. The Petitioner says that if proper care of these goats and
the agreed process is not continued, their productivity may be
affected. It has an apprehension that its confidential information
may be used or disclosed against the terms of the Agreement.
2. The dispute between the parties is not only regarding some
invoices which are said to have been paid late. It relates to what
will be the effect of termination of the Agreement, what duties are
to be performed by both parties regarding the goats, the supply
and use of plasma produced from them, the Petitioner's claim
regarding confidential information and intellectual property rights,
and who has to bear the expenses for keeping the herd. This Court
is required to consider these issues only so far as they are
necessary for deciding whether interim protection should be given.
The final rights and liabilities of the parties will have to be decided
in the arbitration proceedings.
3. The Petitioner states that the parties have been doing
business with each other since 2019, including through the earlier
entity of the Respondent. Under the Supply Agreement dated 1
April 2025, the Respondent was required to maintain at least 400
productive goats for supplying Anti-Human IgG (Fc) Serum
(Goat), which is referred to as the Products in the Agreement.
According to the Petitioner, 418 goats were being maintained for
this purpose when the dispute arose. However, in its rejoinder, the
Petitioner states that four goats have died after filing of the
2
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

Petition and that 414 goats are now available. The actual number
of goats and their present condition will have to be independently
checked. The Petitioner submits that it supplies the immunogens,
immunisation schedules, standard operating procedures, protocols
and other technical information which are required for carrying
out the process. According to the Petitioner, the goats have
undergone a special process and the plasma produced from them
is connected with the Petitioner's own material and confidential
information. The Petitioner states that the goats can remain
productive for a long period, but their productivity may be
seriously affected if immunisation, booster doses, health
monitoring and other prescribed procedures are not properly
followed. It says that if a new herd is to be developed and brought
to the required production stage, it may take at least eighteen
months. It is the case of the Petitioner that Clause 3.11 of the
Agreement provides for a Livestock Supervisor employed by the
Petitioner to be stationed at the Respondent's farm. According to
the Petitioner, this arrangement was made so that the health of the
goats could be properly monitored and its confidential information
and protocols could be protected. The Petitioner alleges that its
supervisor was put under pressure to leave the farm and was
finally compelled to leave on 4 September 2026. Since then,
according to the Petitioner, it has not been able to properly access
the goats, their records, or the process through which the plasma is
collected.
4. The Respondent disputes the case put forward by the
Petitioner. It submits that the goats belong to the Respondent and
3
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

that they were purchased, reared, housed and medically
maintained at its own cost. According to the Respondent, the
Petitioner has not placed orders as required under the Minimum
Order Commitment and has delayed making payments. The
Respondent states that it spends approximately Rs. 28,07,567/-
per month for maintaining the herd. It claims that, because of the
alleged failure of the Petitioner to place the required orders and
make timely payments, it has suffered total financial losses of
approximately Rs. 1,88,18,607/-. The Respondent disputes the
Petitioner's claim that it has any exclusive proprietary right over
the goats, plasma or antibodies. It says that the goats belong to it
and that the process described by the Petitioner does not establish
any patentable invention or exclusive ownership over the
biological material. The Respondent states that it proposes to use
the goats for research services and other farm-related activities,
which according to it will not involve production or sale of
antibodies, serum, plasma or any blood-derived product. On this
basis, the Respondent denies that the reliefs asked for by the
Petitioner are necessary for protecting any right claimed by it. The
Respondent has raised an objection under Sections 14 and 41(h)
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It submits that the Agreement can
be terminated and that it involves continuous duties regarding
maintenance and treatment of animals, which cannot be
supervised by the Court on a day-to-day basis. Therefore,
according to the Respondent, an injunction which would in effect
require the Agreement to be performed should not be granted. The
Respondent has relied upon its registration as a Micro or Small
4
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

Enterprise and referred to Sections 15 and 24 of the Micro, Small
and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, in support of its
claim regarding delayed payments.
5. The Petitioner, in its rejoinder, disputes these submissions. It
states that the Respondent could terminate the Agreement only
after following the procedure provided under Clause 8.3(i), which
required a proper notice of default and an opportunity to correct
the default. According to the Petitioner, the email dated 24 July
2026 did not satisfy these requirements. The Petitioner disputes
the manner in which the Respondent has calculated the payment
period. It says that the parties were following the practice of
calculating the payment period from the Goods Receipt Note,
which was issued after the quality clearance process was
completed. The Petitioner submits that, by its email dated 28
August 2026, the Respondent made withdrawal of the Termination
Notice conditional upon the Petitioner agreeing to a guaranteed
annual procurement commitment of Rs. 4 crore, deletion of the
exclusivity restrictions and payment within thirty days from the
invoice date. According to the Petitioner, these demands show that
the real dispute is about the Respondent wanting to change the
commercial arrangement and not only about delayed payments.
The Respondent disputes this interpretation. It maintains that the
payment terms and minimum order requirements were already
part of the commercial arrangement and that the Petitioner had
failed to comply with them.
5
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

REASONS AND FINDINGS:
6. From the submissions made by both parties, it appears that
serious disputes have arisen between them. This Court is not
required to finally decide these disputes in a Petition under Section
9. At the same time, the Court cannot ignore the immediate risk
which may arise if the subject matter of the proposed arbitration is
damaged, disposed of or dealt with in such a way that the final
decision of the arbitral tribunal becomes ineffective.
7. Clause 10.2 of the Supply Agreement provides for resolution
of disputes by arbitration, with Mumbai as the seat of arbitration.
Clause 10.1 provides for the jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai.
The present dispute arises from the Supply Agreement and the
alleged termination of the same. Therefore, the disputes raised in
this Petition are matters which the parties have agreed to refer to
arbitration. Merely because the parties have provided an initial
period for amicable resolution, it does not mean that this Court
has no power to consider an application for urgent interim
protection under Section 9. Such power is available even before
the arbitral tribunal is constituted. However, the Petitioner will
have to take steps according to the arbitration clause and comply
with Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
which requires the arbitral proceedings to be commenced within
the prescribed period after an interim order is passed.
8. The principles for granting interim relief under Section 9 are
well settled. In Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and
Minerals (P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 125, the Supreme Court explained
6
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

that the usual principles governing interim injunctions apply to
proceedings under Section 9. The Court has to see whether the
applicant has made out a prima facie case, whether the balance of
convenience is in its favour and whether refusal of protection
would cause irreparable injury. Similarly, in Essar House Private
Limited v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited, (2022) 20
SCC 178, paragraphs 48 to 50, the Supreme Court explained that
the Court has to consider the material placed before it, the
strength of the prima facie case and the consequences of granting
or refusing interim relief. The Court must compare the harm which
may be caused to each party depending upon the order passed.
Interim protection should preserve the rights which are to be
decided in arbitration and should not undecide those rights before
the arbitration takes place.
9. Keeping these principles in mind, the first question which
arises for consideration is whether the Petitioner has made out a
prima facie case for which protection is required. Clause 8.3(i) of
the Agreement, as quoted in the Petition, provides as follows:
"8.3 SLPL may terminate this Agreement on the happening of
the following events: (i) On default or non-payment of any
amount by ACPL within thirty (30) days of receiving notice
from SLPL specifying the default and the steps or reasonably
requires ACPL to take to remedy the default."
10. On reading this clause, it appears that the notice has to
mention the default and the steps which are required to be taken
for correcting it, followed by the stipulated period. Therefore, it is
not enough that the Respondent sends some communication
asking for payment. What was stated in the communication, when
7
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

it was received and what opportunity was given to the Petitioner to
correct the alleged default are all relevant matters which have to
be considered. The Petitioner submits that the email dated 24 July
2026 demanded payment by the next day and sought a change in
the payment terms. According to the Petitioner, this email did not
specify the default and the steps required to remedy it in the
manner provided under Clause 8.3(i). The Petitioner has relied
upon Clause 8.7, which provides for communications between the
parties to be sent by registered mail, courier and fax in the manner
stated therein. According to the Petitioner, the email dated 24 July
2026 was not sent in the agreed manner and was not received by
the Petitioner at the relevant time.
11. The Respondent submits that the parties were
communicating through emails and that email was an accepted
method of communication between them. It relies upon earlier
correspondence to say that the Petitioner knew that payment was
required to be made within thirty days from the invoice date. The
Respondent states that the Petitioner admitted delay in its email
dated 26 August 2026, though it disputed the number of days by
which the payments were delayed.
12. These rival submissions require examination of the
Agreement, the earlier practice followed by the parties, the
invoices, the ledger and the correspondence exchanged between
them. At this stage, this Court is not prepared to hold that the
Petitioner was not in default or that every payment was made
within the prescribed time. At the same time, on the material
considered, it cannot be said that the requirements of Clause 8.3(i)
8
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

were followed before issuing the Termination Notice., the contents
and service of the email dated 24 July 2026, the calculation of the
period given for correcting the default and the agreed method of
calculating the payment dates will require final consideration.
13. The Respondent's email dated 28 August 2026, upon which
the Petitioner relies, refers to changes in the payment terms and
the exclusivity arrangement. The Petitioner relies upon this email
to say that the Respondent was trying to change the commercial
arrangement by using the Termination Notice as a means of
pressure. The Respondent denies this allegation and maintains that
its demands arose because of the losses suffered by it. At this stage,
the Court is not recording any finding that either party has acted
in bad faith. However, the correspondence shows that the dispute
cannot safely be decided only by accepting the version of either
party regarding the alleged payment default.
14. The Agreement contains provisions relating to the Livestock
Supervisor, confidentiality, intellectual property and restrictions on
dealing with the Products. Clause 3.11 provides that:
"One LSS (Livestock Supervisor) would be stationed at SLPL,
who would be under the payroll of ADVY"
15. The case of the Petitioner is that this arrangement was
important because of the manner in which the immunogens and
the plasma production process were handled. The Respondent
disputes the Petitioner's statement regarding the actual presence of
the supervisor at the farm. Whether the supervisor was stationed
there continuously and what exactly his duties were are matters
9
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

which will have to be decided on the evidence. However, the
clause does provide a contractual basis for the presence of a
Livestock Supervisor at the Respondent's farm.
16. The Agreement contains provisions regarding confidentiality
and intellectual property, including Clauses 4.1, 4.4 and 5.1 to 5.4.
The Petitioner relies upon these clauses to contend that its
technical information and protocols must remain protected even if
the Respondent's case regarding termination is accepted. The
rejoinder relies upon Clause 11.1, which is stated to preserve
certain obligations, including confidentiality and intellectual
property obligations, even after cancellation, expiry or termination
of the Agreement.
17. The Respondent's contention that the Petitioner does not
have a patent over the immunogen or plasma does not answer
every question relating to contractual confidentiality. A claim
based on a patent under the Patents Act and a claim based on
contractual restrictions are not the same thing. Whether the
information in question is entitled to protection, what rights the
Petitioner has in the relevant material and whether the Respondent
has used or threatened to disclose confidential information are
matters which will have to be decided on evidence. At this stage,
however, there is sufficient basis to require both parties to preserve
the relevant information and not use or disclose it in a manner
which may defeat the purpose of arbitration.
18. This Court is conscious of the fact that the Petitioner has not
established ownership of the goats merely because it supplied
10
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

immunogens or protocols. The Respondent claims that it owns the
goats and has incurred substantial expenditure for their purchase
and maintenance. No finding is being made in this order that the
goats belong to the Petitioner, that the plasma belongs to the
Petitioner in every circumstance, or that the Respondent has no
independent rights in the animals. These questions, along with the
meaning and effect of the exclusivity provisions, will remain open
for decision.
19. The Respondent's reliance upon the Minimum Order
Commitment raises a substantial dispute. The Petitioner says that
this commitment relates to the quantity of Products which the
Respondent is required to supply and does not place any minimum
annual purchase obligation upon the Petitioner. The Respondent
says that the Petitioner was required to purchase specified
quantities and that failure to do so, along with delayed payments,
made the Agreement commercially unworkable. Both parties have
placed their respective interpretations of the Agreement and the
relevant correspondence before the Court. The extent of any
purchase obligation and the alleged financial losses will have to be
decided in arbitration. These matters cannot be finally decided in
the present Petition.
20. The same position applies to the Respondent's reliance upon
the Specific Relief Act and the Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises Development Act. The Respondent is entitled to pursue
its claims relating to payments, statutory interest, alleged shortfall
in minimum orders and the legal effect of termination. This order
does not take away those claims. However, the relief now being
11
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

considered is for preserving the goats, plasma, relevant records
and confidential information. It is not a final order compelling the
parties to continue their entire commercial relationship
indefinitely. Nor does it finally direct specific performance of every
obligation under the Agreement.
21. The Court must next consider whether refusal of interim
protection is likely to cause irreparable harm. The case of the
Petitioner is that the goats have undergone immunisation using its
proprietary immunogens and that the production process depends
upon the required booster doses and the applicable health and
animal care procedures being continued. It states that any serious
interruption may affect the productivity of the goats and that the
time, effort, and money already invested may not be recovered
even if damages are awarded later.
22. The Respondent disputes the scientific and proprietary basis
of these claims. It states that it has no intention of slaughtering the
goats or using them for producing antibodies or plasma for third
parties. According to the Respondent, the animals may be used for
research services and other farm-related activities which do not
involve blood-derived products. These statements have been
considered by the Court. However, the Court is not recording a
finding that the Respondent intends to slaughter the goats or that
any public health risk alleged by the Petitioner has been
established. However, the concern is not limited to the possibility
of sale or slaughter of the goats. If the existing immunisation and
health procedures are stopped or materially changed, the
productive condition of the herd may be affected. If the
12
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

confidential protocols or the plasma are transferred or disclosed to
third parties, the resulting harm may be difficult to measure or
reverse. Therefore, the loss claimed by the Petitioner may be more
than the value of the goats or the price of the Products. In these
circumstances, it is necessary to preserve the existing herd, records
and plasma until the disputed rights are decided.
23. There is material to show that approximately 248 bottles of
plasma are stated to have remained at the Respondent's farm
before and after the termination of the Agreement. The Petitioner
says that it does not know the present condition of this plasma or
what has happened to it. The Respondent has a different version
regarding the events, including the supply of immunogens and the
collection of test bleeds. The present number, condition, storage
status, quality, and ownership of the bottles cannot be assumed
without verification. They should be recorded and inspected by an
independent person so that neither party can later complain that
the material was used, lost or damaged without proper
information. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has made out a
prima facie case for limited protective relief. This does not mean
that the Court has held that the Termination Notice is invalid or
that the Petitioner has succeeded in all its contractual claims. The
finding is only that the disputes raised are serious enough to
require preservation of the subject matter. This is necessary
because any change in the condition of the goats or disclosure of
confidential information may cause harm which cannot be
properly compensated by money alone.
13
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

24. The next question is whether the balance of convenience is
in favour of the Petitioner. The Respondent's case regarding the
cost of maintaining the animals cannot be ignored. It states that it
incurs approximately Rs. 28,07,567/- per month for maintaining
the herd. It claims that the Petitioner has delayed payments and
failed to place orders in the required quantities. If the Respondent
is directed to maintain the herd without any arrangement for
payment of expenses, it would have to continue bearing a
substantial financial burden. The rejoinder, however, proposes a
practical arrangement. The Petitioner states that it is willing to
deposit Rs. 57,34,529.78/- towards the pending invoices of the
Respondent. It offers to deposit Rs. 20,25,592/- towards the
proposed purchase price of the 414 goats. It offers to bear the
expenses for feed and medical care of the goats, obtain the
necessary government approvals for shifting the goats to its own
farm at Hyderabad and make arrangements for such shifting.
These proposals are relevant because they provide a possible way
to protect the subject matter without requiring the Respondent to
bear the entire financial burden during the pendency of the
dispute.
25. While considering the balance of convenience, the Court has
to look at the consequences for both parties. If interim protection
is refused and the goats, plasma or confidential information are
dealt with in a manner which affects their condition or use, the
injury caused to the Petitioner may not be fully repaired later. On
the other hand, if protection is granted without any arrangement
for payment, the Respondent may have to continue spending
14
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

substantial amounts without receiving the money claimed by it.
Such a position would cause hardship to the Respondent.
Considering the Petitioner's stated willingness to make the deposits
and bear the reasonable maintenance expenses, the balance of
convenience is in favour of granting limited protection subject to
suitable financial conditions. The Respondent will continue to
retain its claimed ownership and physical responsibility for the
goats. Its claims regarding unpaid invoices, interest, Minimum
Order Commitment and other financial losses will remain open.
The Petitioner, on its part, will have to provide financial protection
towards the pending invoices and the continuing expenses while
the parties proceed with arbitration.
26. At this stage, appointment of a Court Receiver is not
necessary. The Respondent is already in physical possession of the
farm and is responsible for the care of the animals. If a receiver is
appointed to take over the farm or the herd, it may create
difficulties and interfere with the ordinary veterinary care of the
animals. Appointment of a Court Commissioner, with assistance
from a qualified veterinary professional, would be sufficient for the
present purpose. The Commissioner can inspect the goats, verify
the records, prepare an inventory of the plasma and submit a
report regarding compliance with the protective directions. The
duty of the Commissioner will be to inspect and report, and not to
take over the Respondent's business or manage the farm.
27. In view of the above, the Petition is partly allowed in the
following terms:
15
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

(a) The Respondent shall not sell, transfer, shift, slaughter,
dispose of or otherwise deal with the 414 goats mentioned in
the rejoinder, or any additional goat which the Court
Commissioner finds to be part of the herd maintained for the
purposes of the Supply Agreement dated 1 April 2025, in any
manner which may defeat the purpose of this order;
However, this direction shall not prevent any urgent
veterinary treatment or any action required by a competent
government authority for the welfare of the animals. In such
a situation, the Respondent shall record the reasons for
taking such action, maintain the relevant records and inform
the Court Commissioner and the Petitioner without delay. If
any other proposal is made for removing or shifting the
goats, the same shall be placed before the Court or the
arbitral tribunal for appropriate orders.
(b) The Respondent shall take proper care of the goats by
following the applicable animal welfare requirements and
the existing veterinary and immunisation procedures, so far
as they apply to the herd. Neither party shall deliberately
stop or make any major change in the necessary veterinary
care, immunisation or booster schedule in a manner which is
likely to affect the health or productive condition of the
goats;
Both parties shall cooperate with each other to ensure that
the necessary veterinary care and applicable technical
procedures are continued. If any dispute arises regarding the
16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

technical steps required for proper care of the herd, the same
shall be referred without delay to a qualified veterinary
professional. If necessary, either party shall be at liberty to
seek further directions from the arbitral tribunal.
(c) The Respondent shall allow the Petitioner to keep one
Livestock Supervisor at the farm as provided under Clause
3.11 of the Agreement. The Respondent shall not obstruct or
prevent the supervisor from carrying out the duties provided
under the Agreement;
The supervisor shall follow the reasonable safety, hygiene,
biosecurity and animal welfare requirements applicable at
the farm. The supervisor shall not interfere with the other
business activities of the Respondent which are not
connected with the present dispute, and shall not take over
the management of the farm. The question whether the
Agreement required the supervisor to remain present at the
farm throughout the day and night is kept open.
(d) Until further orders of the Court or the arbitral
tribunal, the Respondent shall not sell, supply, transfer or
otherwise make available to any third party the Products or
plasma produced from the goats covered by this order. The
Respondent shall not disclose, transfer or use the Petitioner's
immunogens, confidential protocols, standard operating
procedures, technical information or other material claimed
to be confidential, except to the extent required for
preserving and caring for the herd in accordance with the
17
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

Agreement and this order;
This direction shall not prevent the Respondent from
continuing its other business activities which do not involve
the goats, plasma, Products or confidential material covered
by this order.
(e) The Respondent shall preserve the plasma which,
according to the Petitioner, consists of approximately 248
bottles, subject to verification by the Court Commissioner.
The plasma shall be listed and kept under the required
storage conditions. Until further orders, the Respondent shall
not sell, transfer, dispose of or otherwise use the said plasma
in any manner which may defeat the purpose of this order;
The Court Commissioner shall record the batch details,
quantities, dates, storage conditions and present condition of
the bottles, to the extent these details can be found from the
available records and inspection. If any technical
examination is required to find out the quality of the plasma
or the safe storage period of any bottle, the Commissioner
may take assistance from an independent expert.
(f) The Respondent shall preserve all relevant records
concerning the goats, including their identification, health,
vaccination and immunisation records, booster schedules,
veterinary treatment, plasma production, test bleeds, plasma
collection and storage, invoices and correspondence. The
Respondent shall preserve the relevant CCTV footage and
other electronic records which are still available in the
18
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

ordinary course;
Neither party shall destroy, alter or hide any document or
record relevant to the disputes raised in this Petition. Copies
of the relevant records shall be made available to the Court
Commissioner during the inspection.
(g) The Prothonotary and Senior Master shall nominate a
Court Commissioner to inspect the farm situated at Malthan,
Taluka Daund, District Pune. The Commissioner may take
assistance from an independent qualified veterinary
professional and such other technical person as may be
required for the inspection;
As far as possible, the Commissioner shall carry out the first
inspection within seven days from the date of this order. The
Commissioner shall identify and count the goats and record
their general condition. The Commissioner shall inspect the
available immunisation and health records, identify any
goats reported to have died after the Petition was filed and
record the available details regarding their deaths. The
Commissioner shall further inspect and prepare a list of the
plasma referred to in clause (e) above.
The Commissioner shall submit a report to this Court within
fourteen days from the date of the first inspection. The
Commissioner shall not take over the management of the
farm or decide the ownership of the goats, plasma or
confidential information. The fees and reasonable expenses
of the Commissioner and the veterinary professional assisting
19
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

the Commissioner shall initially be paid by the Petitioner,
subject to any final adjustment which may be directed by the
arbitral tribunal.
(h) The Petitioner shall, within seven days from the date of
this order, deposit a sum of Rs. 57,34,529.78 with the
Prothonotary and Senior Master towards the pending
invoices referred to in the rejoinder. After the corresponding
invoices are verified, the amount may be released to the
Respondent against those invoices;
The deposit and release of this amount shall be without
prejudice to the respective claims of both parties regarding
the dates on which the invoices became payable, the alleged
delay in making payment, any interest claimed under the
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act,
2006, and the validity of the Termination Notice. By
directing this payment, the Court is not giving any final
finding on these questions.
(i) The Petitioner shall, within seven days from the date of
this order, deposit a sum of Rs. 20,25,592 with the
Prothonotary and Senior Master as security in relation to the
proposed purchase price of the 414 goats referred to in the
rejoinder. This amount shall be kept in an interest-bearing
deposit until further orders of the Court or the arbitral
tribunal;
Making this deposit shall not mean that the sale or transfer
of the goats has been completed. It shall not be treated as a
20
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

finding that the Petitioner owns the goats or that the
Respondent is bound to sell them to the Petitioner. Any
proposed transfer of the goats shall remain subject to the
necessary statutory and government approvals and further
orders, wherever required.
(j) The Petitioner shall bear the reasonable and actual
expenses required for feed, veterinary care and medical
maintenance of the goats during the period for which this
interim order remains in force. The Respondent shall
maintain proper accounts of these expenses and provide an
item-wise monthly statement supported by the available
bills, vouchers and other records;
Until the actual expenses are verified, the amount of Rs.
28,07,567 per month stated by the Respondent shall be
treated as the provisional monthly maintenance amount. The
Petitioner shall pay this amount against the monthly
statement, subject to verification and adjustment. If any
claim is made for an amount higher than this figure, the
same shall be supported by the relevant records and may be
placed before the arbitral tribunal for appropriate directions.
The payment of maintenance expenses shall be on account
and without prejudice to the contentions of both parties
regarding who is required to bear the contractual costs and
liabilities. The Respondent shall continue to arrange for the
actual care and maintenance of the goats at the farm, unless
a different order is passed.
21
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

(k) The Respondent shall not act upon the Termination
Notice dated 24 August 2026 to the extent that such action
would defeat the protective directions given in this order.
This shall include preventing the access permitted under
clause (c) or disposing of the goats, plasma, Products or
relevant confidential material contrary to this order;
This direction is only for preserving the subject matter until
the dispute is decided. It shall not be treated as a declaration
that the Termination Notice is invalid or that the Supply
Agreement has necessarily continued in force.
(l) The directions given in this order are interim measures
for preserving the subject matter of the disputes. They shall
not be treated as a final finding regarding ownership of the
goats or plasma, the patentability of the immunogens, the
proprietary nature of the technical information, the
exclusivity obligations of the parties, the Minimum Order
Commitment, the payment terms, the alleged breaches or the
validity of the Termination Notice;
All questions of fact and law relating to the merits of the
dispute are kept open for decision by the arbitral tribunal.
The Respondent's claims regarding delayed payments,
statutory interest, minimum orders and alleged financial
losses are kept open. Nothing in this order shall affect the
Respondent's right to pursue those claims in accordance with
law.
22
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14

carbpl32064-2026-J.doc

(m) The Petitioner shall take steps to commence the arbitral
proceedings in accordance with Clause 10.2 of the
Agreement and Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, within ninety days from the date of
this order, unless further time is granted by the Court. Both
parties shall proceed with the appointment of the sole
arbitrator in accordance with the procedure provided in the
Agreement and the law.;
(n) After the arbitral tribunal is constituted, either party
shall be at liberty to approach the tribunal under Section 17
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for
continuation, modification or discharge of the interim
measures granted by this Court. The present directions shall
continue to remain in force until they are modified, varied or
discharged by a competent court or the arbitral tribunal.
28. The Petition is partly allowed in the above terms. There shall
be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
23
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:43:14
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)