Rajadhiraj Tirupani Vinayak Natraj Pvt Ltd vs Facor Alloys Limited
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010417992026
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 387/2026 & I.A. 24408/2026
RAJADHIRAJ TIRUPANI VINAYAK NATRAJ PVT LTD
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.
Aakansha Nehra, Mr. Mayank
Biyani, Ms. Sanjana Srivastava,
Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal and Ms.
Ishita Sharma, Advocates.
versus
FACOR ALLOYS LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anirudh Wadhwa, Mr.
Keshav Gulati and Mr. Vibhu
Pahuja, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
% 14.10.2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 9(1)(ii)(c) and
1
(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking, inter alia ,
appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the Respondent’s
plant situated at Shreeramnagar P.O., Garividi, Vizianagaram, Andhra
2
Pradesh – 535101 , and prepare an inventory of the raw materials,
finished goods and other goods belonging to the Petitioner and lying
3
therein , along with interim protection in respect of the subject goods.
1
“Act” hereinafter
2
“subject premises” hereinafter
3
“subject goods” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:17:41
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 387/2026 Page 1 of 7
2. Briefly stated, the parties entered into a Conversion Agreement
dated 01.08.2021, pursuant to which the Petitioner entrusted
manganese ores, Fe-Mn slag and reductants to the Respondent for
conversion into Ferro Manganese and Silico Manganese at the
Respondent’s plant. Subsequently, the disputes arose between the
parties.
3. The Petitioner claims that the subject goods continued to belong
to it and were lying at the Respondent’s plant when disputes arose
between the parties.
4. The disputes were ultimately referred to arbitration, culminating
in the Final Award dated 31.07.2025, whereby the learned Sole
Arbitrator, inter alia , recognised the Petitioner’s entitlement to the
return of its raw materials, finished products and other goods lying at
the Respondent’s plant and restrained the Respondent from
obstructing their removal. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:
“a. A declaration that Rajadhiraj is entitled to
return of its raw materials, finished products and
other goods lying at the said plant of Facor.
b. An order restraining the Respondent from
obstructing removal of the raw materials, finished
products and other goods of Rajadhiraj lying at the
said plant of Facor”
5. It is further submitted that the Respondent had instituted
proceedings bearing OMP(I)(COMM) 394/2025 under Section 9 of
the Act in respect of the subject goods, seeking their attachment and
consequential sale towards satisfaction of the amounts awarded in
their favour. The said proceedings were subsequently withdrawn on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:17:41
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 387/2026 Page 2 of 7
the ground that enforcement proceedings were already pending before
the Executing Court, where an order of attachment had been passed in
respect of the subject goods.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, in view of the
competing claims concerning the quantity, identification and valuation
of the subject goods, and the apprehension that the subject goods may
be sold, removed, mixed with other goods or otherwise dealt with, it is
necessary to preserve the subject matter and ascertain its present
physical condition.
7. It is submitted that the Petitioner had also sought inspection on
14.07.2026 and 13.08.2026, but the same was denied by the
Respondent, due to which the Petitioner is not even aware whether the
subject goods belonging to it continue to exist at the Respondent’s
plant or have been disposed of.
8. Issue notice. Mr. Anirudh Wadhwa accepts notice on behalf of
the Respondent.
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposes the petition on the
ground of maintainability, submitting that enforcement proceedings
are already pending before the Executing Court and that the subject
goods have been attached in those proceedings.
10. It is further submitted that the relief sought by the Petitioner
amounts to indirect enforcement of the arbitral award when
enforcement proceedings are already pending before the Executing
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:17:41
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 387/2026 Page 3 of 7
Court and the goods have been attached therein and the Petitioner is at
liberty to raise its claims and objections before the Executing Court
and participate in the pending enforcement proceedings.
11. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions,
does not press the other prayers in the petition and confines the relief
sought to appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit and inspect
the subject premises.
12. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties.
13. In view of this Court, the objection to the maintainability of the
present petition is not sustainable. Admittedly, the arbitral award
recognises the Petitioner’s entitlement to the return of subject goods
lying at the Respondent’s plant and restrains the Respondent from
obstructing their removal and no enforcement proceedings are pending
by the Petitioner.
14. In any case, Section 9(1) of the Act expressly permits a party to
seek interim measures of protection after the making of the arbitral
award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the
Act. The expression ‘ before it is enforced’ does not preclude a party
from seeking appropriate interim protection merely because
enforcement proceedings have been initiated. The scope of such relief
would, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case
and the nature of the protection sought.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:17:41
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 387/2026 Page 4 of 7
15. The aforesaid position finds support in the Full Bench decision
of the Madras High Court in B.M. Insulation (P) Ltd. v. Vardeep
4
Petro Chemical (P) Ltd. , which relied upon the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in Shanghai Electric Group Company
5
Limited v. Reliance Infrastructure Limited . Accordingly, the
objection as to the maintainability of the present petition is rejected.
16. As regards to the limited relief pressed, this Court is of the view
that appointment of a Local Commissioner is warranted, as the
Petitioner has been denied inspection of the subject goods, despite the
arbitral award recognising its entitlement thereto in favour of the
Petitioner. Such an exercise, being limited to inspection and preparing
inventory of the subject goods, would not amount to enforcement of
the arbitral award.
17. Accordingly, considering the substantial quantity of the subject
goods and the extent of the subject premises, Ms. Shreya Raman,
Advocate (Mob No: 7306739542) and Ms. Diya Agrawal, Advocate
(Mob No:9074595987) are appointed as Local Commissioners who
shall visit the subject premises and carry out the task as indicated
below:
Sr
No.
Names of Local Commissioners Work to be carried
out
1. Ms. Shreya Raman, Advocate
(Mobile No. 7306739542)
Inspection and
Inventory of Raw
Material and other
goods of the
4
Arbitration Application No. 374 of 2025 and 628 of 2025, dated 21-1-2026
5
2024 SCC OnLine Del 1606
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:17:41
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 387/2026 Page 5 of 7
Petitioner lying at
the subject premises
2. Ms. Diya Agrawal, Advocate
(Mobile No. 9074595987)
Inspection and
Inventory of
Finished Goods of
the Petitioner lying
at the subject
premises
18. The Local Commissioners shall also have the following powers:
a. prepare an inventory recording their description,
quantity/approximate weight, location, identifying particulars
and apparent physical condition, including whether the subject
goods are separately identifiable or commingled;
b. undertake photography and videography of the goods and areas
inspected;
c. verify the inventory, where necessary, with reference to
available weighment records, stock registers and
inward/outward movement records;
d. permit atleast one authorised representative and counsel of each
party to remain present and require reasonable cooperation from
the parties;
e. where necessary, draw and seal representative samples for
preservation, subject to further orders of appropriate Court
f. record any shortage, obstruction, commingling or inability to
identify the subject goods;
g. seek police assistance, if required, for effective execution of the
commission.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:17:41
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 387/2026 Page 6 of 7
19. The Respondent shall extend all necessary cooperation for
execution of the commission.
20. The Local Commissioners shall file a report before this Court
along with the inventory, photograph and videography within four
weeks from execution of the commission.
21. The initial fee of the two Local Commissioners is fixed at Rs.
2,00,000/- each in addition to other miscellaneous out-of-pocket
expenses, which shall be paid in advance. If the assignment require
more than one day for completion, an additional fee of Rs. 1,50,000/-
per day shall be payable to each Local Commissioner for every
additional day required.
22. All the above expenses shall be borne by the Petitioner in the
first instance. The Petitioner shall also arrange for photography and
videography of the entire inspection and inventory process.
23. The report will be taken on record as and when it is filed.
24. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
25. Dasti .
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026/pa
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:17:41
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 387/2026 Page 7 of 7