01Facts
An arbitral award dated 31 July 2025 declared the respondent entitled to recover its raw materials, finished products and other goods lying at the appellant’s plant, and restrained the appellant from obstructing their removal.
p. 2 · ¶ 2After the award, the respondent sought inspection of the goods, alleging that the appellant had not responded favourably to its requests. The Single Judge appointed Local Commissioners to inventory and document the goods.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–4The appellant appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing, among other things, that execution proceedings were pending before the Vishakhapatnam Court and that a bailiff appointed there had already inventoried the goods.
pp. 1, 4–5 · ¶ 1, 7–802Issues
i.Whether the Single Judge had jurisdiction under Section 9 of the 1996 Act to appoint Local Commissioners to inventory the goods after the award and while execution proceedings were pending.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 9–13, 16–17ii.Whether the appointment of a bailiff by the executing court, or Section 47(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, barred the Single Judge from making the inventory order.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 9–12 · p. 8 · ¶ 16–17iii.Whether the order appointing Local Commissioners warranted appellate interference under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.
pp. 8–9 · ¶ 18–2203Law Applied
Section 9(1)(ii)(c) of the 1996 Act empowers a court to order interim measures for the detention, preservation or inspection of property that is the subject matter of the arbitration, including authorising a person to enter premises to obtain information about it; this power remains available after an award is made and until it is enforced.
pp. 2, 7–8 · ¶ 13, 15Section 47(1) CPC requires the executing court to determine questions between the parties relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree; “determination” involves an effective expression of opinion that resolves an issue, not merely an investigative or information-gathering step.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 10–12In National Projects Construction Corpn. Ltd. v. Ishvakoo (India) (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1535, the Supreme Court held that a party, including an unsuccessful party to an arbitration, may seek post-award interim measures under Section 9 to preserve the subject matter of the arbitration.
p. 7 · ¶ 14Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 37Section 9Section 36
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 47
04Reasoning
The inventory order did not finally determine any question concerning execution, discharge or satisfaction of the award; it merely directed the commissioners to record information about goods to which the award entitled the respondent. Section 47 CPC therefore did not prevent the Single Judge from making the order.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 10–12Since the award remained unenforced, Section 9 jurisdiction continued notwithstanding the pending execution proceedings, and the inventory fell within the inspection and information-gathering powers of Section 9(1)(ii)(c).
pp. 6–8 · ¶ 13–16The existence of a bailiff appointed by the Vishakhapatnam Court was not a legal bar to the commissioners’ appointment. The Single Judge had also given a reason for the inventory: the respondent had been denied inspection despite its entitlement under the award.
pp. 8–9 · ¶ 17–1905Holding
The Court held that the Single Judge acted within the jurisdiction conferred by Section 9 and that neither Section 47 CPC nor the bailiff’s appointment barred the order.
p. 9 · ¶ 21–22Finding no basis for interference under Section 37, the Court dismissed the appeal in limine.
p. 9 · ¶ 21–22Original Court PDF
Facor Alloys Limited Through Its Authorised Representative Sachin GuptavsRajadhiraj Tirupani Vinayak Natraj Private Limited
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
