Crt Financial Services Llc vs Solomont Conglomerete India Pvt Ltd
- Court
- Bombay High Court
4-CARBP-837-2025
CNR No : HCBM020384182024
2026:BHC-OS:23378
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
NAMDEV
BARE
Date:
2026.10.28
19:16:14
+0530
VAIBHAV
NAMDEV
BARE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 837 of 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6451 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 837 of 2025
CRT Financial Services LLC ...Petitioner
Versus
Solomont Conglomerate India Pvt Ltd. and Anr. ...Respondents
_______
Adv. Piyush Raheja a/w. Gaurav Suryavanshi, Ranveer Chapekar i/b. Ranveer
Chapekar for Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
_______
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 16 OCTOBER, 2026
rd
PRONOUNCED ON : 23 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The captioned Petition is filed under Section 49 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ Arbitration Act ”), seeking enforcement of the
th
foreign award dated 16 November 2022, (“ the award ”), recognized as
foreign award as per Section 44 of the Arbitration Act, being passed by an
1
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 19:41:40
4-CARBP-837-2025
Arbitral Tribunal within the jurisdiction of the New York Convention, i.e.,
the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards.
2. Mr. Raheja, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at
the outset submitted that the Petitioner is a Limited Liability Corporate,
registered in the United States of America, whereas Respondent No. 1 is
an Indian company and Respondent No. 2 is the director of Respondent
No. 1 company. He submitted that Respondent No. 1 entered into a ‘Sale
st
and Purchase and Project Funding Agreement’ on 31 May 2022 (“ the said
agreement ”) with the Petitioner, for the sale of rough crystal rubies for
USD 632,000,000.
3. He submitted that, as per the said agreement, the Safe Keeping Receipt
SKR
(“ ”) and the Blocked Asset Letter were to be issued to Respondent
No. 1, who was to pay 10% of the agreed amount to the Petitioner within
7 days. He submitted that in spite of the Petitioner having performed
obligations under the said agreement, Respondent No. 1 failed to pay the
Petitioner, despite various reminders. He submitted that since the said
2
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 19:41:40
4-CARBP-837-2025
agreement contained an arbitration clause, the Petitioner invoked
th
arbitration vide an email on 26 October 2022, and arbitration was
th
November 2022, in which the
conducted in one day’s hearing on 16
Respondents had participated. He submitted that the Respondents had
admitted that (i) there was delivery of the Assets as agreed to under the
Contract; (ii) there was a transfer of Ownership of the SKRs as agreed
under the said agreement; (iii) the Respondents had used the assets
received from the Petitioner to earn a benefit of USD 632,000,000.
th
4. He submitted that on 16 November 2022, the Arbitral Award (“ the said
inter alia
award ”) came to be passed, directing the Respondents to (i) pay
USD 189,600,000 as damages; (ii) pay USD 62,5000 as costs and (iii) pay
USD 289,662,500 to the Respondents with interest at the rate of 10 from
th
30 October 2022.
5. He then submitted that upon passage of the arbitral award, the Petitioner
sought recognition of the same in Singapore, which was allowed by the
th
High Court of Singapore vide Order dated 9 January 2023, and the
Respondents were given 14 days’ time period to challenge the said award,
3
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 19:41:40
4-CARBP-837-2025
however, no appeal was filed by the Respondents. He submitted that the
said award was conveyed to the Respondents through the Notice of the
th
Advocate of the Petitioner in Singapore on 17 January 2023.
st
6. He then submitted that on 1 February 2023, the High Court of Singapore
entered the said Award into Judgment and declared the liability of the
Respondents, and accordingly, a notice for attachment for USD
194,969,898.46 was issued against the Respondents’ funds at DBS Bank.
th
He submitted that, however, on 14 March 2023, the DBS Bank informed
the bailiff that the Respondents maintained no account with DBS Bank. He
submitted that the Respondents completely remained absent from the
proceedings before the Singapore High Court. He submitted that since the
Singapore attachment effort yielded no results, the Petitioner was
constrained to issue a legal notice to the Respondents through their Indian
th
advocates on 6 June 2023, after which Respondent No. 2 sent certain
WhatsApp messages to the Petitioner. He submitted that the Petitioner
th
issued a further legal notice to the Respondents via email on 8 August
2023. He submitted that in spite of repetitive notices issued by the
4
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 19:41:40
4-CARBP-837-2025
Petitioner, the Respondents failed to pay the outstanding dues as per the
said award. It is these facts, he submitted that the Petitioner was
constrained to file the Commercial Execution Application No. 131 of 2025
as well as the captioned Petition.
th
7. Mr. Raheja submitted that on 6 March 2026, this Court allowed the
present Petitioner to serve the Respondent No. 2 vide email and WhatsApp.
He submitted that the Petitioner accordingly served Respondent No. 2 and
th
filed Affidavit of Service on 9 March 2026 Despite this, he submits that
th
Respondent No. 2 has not appeared. He submitted that on 13 March 2026,
the Petitioner also completed service by private mode on both
Respondents.
8. Mr. Raheja submitted that Section 49 of the Arbitration Act enumerates
that when the Court is satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable under
Chapter I of Part II, the award shall be deemed to be a decree of that Court
and for the same, the award must satisfy the requisites of Sections 44, 46,
47 and 48 of the Arbitration Act. He submitted that thus the Court is
required to consider whether an award falls within the definition of ‘foreign
5
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 19:41:40
4-CARBP-837-2025
award’ as per Section 44 first, for which one must satisfy that (i) the award
is on differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or
not, considered commercial under Indian law; (ii) the award is made in
pursuance of a written agreement to which New York Convention applies;
and (iii) the award is made in a territory notified by the Central
Government as a reciprocating territory.
9. He submitted that in the present case, the parties entered into a written
agreement, i.e., a Sale and Purchase and Project Funding Agreement, for
the sale of rough crystal rubies for USD 632,000,000. He submitted that
the said agreement was of purely commercial nature. He submitted that
though the Petitioner performed their part of the agreement, and since the
Respondents defaulted in making payment.
10. Mr. Raheja further pointed out that the said award was passed in the United
States of America, which is recognised as a reciprocating territory within
the meaning of Section 44(b) of the Arbitration Act, and thus, the said
award is sufficiently established as a foreign award. He also submitted that
as per Section 46, a foreign award that would be enforceable under Chapter
6
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 19:41:40
4-CARBP-837-2025
I is treated as binding for all purposes on the persons between whom it was
made. He submitted that the party applying for enforcement must produce
documents before the Court according to Section 47, viz.
(i) the original award or a copy duly authenticated in the manner required
by the law of the country where it was made, which, in the present
case, is annexed at Exhibit “C” to the Petition;
(ii) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy which is
annexed at page no. 54 to the Petition.
He submitted that the Petitioner has produced a certified copy of the said
award, which is notarised and affirmed as per the Hague Convention of 5th
October 1961. He thus submitted that the Petitioner has satisfied the
necessary documentary evidence for this Court to enforce the said award.
11. He further submitted that the enforcement of a foreign award may be
refused only on the grounds listed in Section 48, namely incapacity or
invalidity of the agreement, lack of notice or inability to present one’s case,
award beyond the scope of submission, improper constitution of the
tribunal or procedure, the award not yet being binding or having been set
7
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 19:41:40
4-CARBP-837-2025
aside or suspended, non-arbitrability, or conflict with the public policy of
India. He submitted that none of these grounds have been made out in the
present case; in fact, even after multiple efforts of correspondence, the
Respondents have chosen not to appear in the present proceedings, and
thus the grounds available to the Respondents are waived off by them.
12. Mr. Raheja thus submitted that the conditions for enforcement of a foreign
th
award as per Arbitration Act, are met, and therefore the award dated 16
November 2022 is enforceable in India, and thus the same deserves to be
declared as a decree of this Court, as per Section 49 of the Arbitration Act,
and the present Petition is allowed with costs.
13. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and having considered
the material placed before me, I have no hesitation in allowing the present
Petition, since (i) the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the said
Award is a foreign award within the meaning of Section 44 of the
Arbitration Act; (ii) the Petitioner has complied with the requirements of
Section 47 of the Arbitration Act; (iii) the Respondent has neither
challenged the said Award nor opposed the present Petition; and (iv) no
8
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 19:41:40
4-CARBP-837-2025
ground has been made out for resisting enforcement of the said Award
under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act.
14. For the reasons set out hereinabove, I pass the following Order:
(i) The captioned Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘(i)’.
(ii) There shall be no orders as to costs.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]
9
Vaibhav
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 19:41:40
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)