01Facts
The Petitioner sought urgent interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to secure the amounts awarded in its favor by an Arbitral Tribunal on 26.12.2025.
¶ 1, 11The dispute arose from a Research and Collaboration Agreement dated 01.07.2017.
¶ 2During the second arbitration, the Tribunal and the High Court had previously directed the Respondent to secure sums of ₹62.145 crores and ₹22.62 crores due to "dwindling financial condition," a "severe liquidity crunch," and the Respondent’s own claims of "financial hardship" in SLP proceedings.
¶ 4, 5, 7, 10The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent's auditor resigned due to lack of records, retained earnings dropped by 96%, and assets were at risk of PMLA attachment.
¶ 13, 14The Respondent resisted, citing an unaudited balance sheet showing assets of ₹1,522 crores and pending arithmetic corrections under Section 33 of the Act.
¶ 17, 1902Issues
i.Whether the Petitioner satisfied the requirements for interim protection/security of the awarded amount post-award under Section 9 of the Act.
¶ 12, 17ii.Whether the pendency of an application for correction of the award under Section 33 of the Act bars the Court from granting interim relief.
¶ 20, 21iii.Whether the court is bound by the strict rigors of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC in Section 9 proceedings.
¶ 18, 3103Law Applied
The Court applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows for interim measures to secure the amount in dispute post-award but before enforcement.
¶ 1, 31It relied on *Essar House (P) Ltd. v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd.*, which established that the Court should not withhold relief on technicalities of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC if a *prima facie* case and balance of convenience exist, noting that a "strong possibility of diminution of assets" suffices.
¶ 31, 32Regarding Section 33, it noted the conflict between *S.P.S. Rana v. MTNL* (30-day limit is sacrosanct) and *IHBAS v. MI2C Securities* (rigors may be relaxed in exceptional clerical errors).
¶ 35, 39, 40Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5Section 29
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9Section 17Section 37Section 33Section 34Section 31Section 32
04Reasoning
The Court found that the Petitioner had a strong *prima facie* case as it held a final Arbitral Award.
¶ 32It rejected the Respondent's reliance on unaudited financial statements, noting the Auditor’s resignation for non-cooperation and the Respondent's previous admissions of financial distress before the Supreme Court.
¶ 30, 33The Court observed that since previous interim orders (securing ₹62.145cr and ₹22.62cr) were upheld by the Apex Court based on the Respondent’s precarious financial health, there was no reason to deviate now that the debt had been crystallized into an award.
¶ 29, 32Regarding the Section 33 application, the Court held that even if the application was pending or potentially time-barred, it did not impede the Court's power to preserve the "principal amount" of the award to prevent it from becoming a "paper award."
¶ 40, 4105Holding
The Court allowed the petition in part, directing the Respondent to secure the principal awarded amount of ₹127.856 crores.
¶ 41Given that ₹62.145 crores and ₹22.62 crores were already secured via previous orders, the Respondent was directed to furnish an additional bank guarantee for the balance of ₹43.091 crores with the Registrar General of the High Court.
¶ 41The Court declined to secure the interest component at this stage, leaving it open for the Petitioner to argue for full protection during Section 34 challenge proceedings.
¶ 42, 43The Petition and all pending applications were disposed of.
¶ 44Original Court PDF
Mintellectuals LLP v. Lava International Limited O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 15/2026
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
