For Section 9 relief over goods, territorial jurisdiction lies where the goods are situated.

The petitioner sought relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including protection of a 60.040 MT consignment of aluminium scrap located at ICD Palwal and the balance contracted material.

The parties’ contracts provided for English law and exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts, with arbitration seated in Singapore under SIAC Rules.

The petitioner contended that Delhi had jurisdiction because the contracts were negotiated and administered there, payments were made from Delhi, and its registered office was located there.

The Court identified territorial jurisdiction as the question for determination.

Whether, notwithstanding the Singapore seat and the contractual choice of English courts, an Indian court could entertain a Section 9 petition in the absence of an agreement excluding Section 9 relief under the proviso to Section 2(2) of the Act.

Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition when the goods sought to be protected were situated at ICD Palwal, Haryana.

Section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended, permits recourse to Section 9 in an international commercial arbitration seated outside India, subject to an agreement to the contrary.

Relying on Big Charter (P) Ltd. v. Ezen Aviation Pty. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1713, and Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1606, the Court stated that a foreign-court jurisdiction clause, without more, does not itself exclude Section 9 relief.

Under Section 2(1)(e)(ii), the competent court in an international commercial arbitration is determined by the statutory test of jurisdiction over the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration;

the Division Bench in Shanghai Electric held that, for Section 9 relief concerning assets, the situs of the relevant asset may determine territorial jurisdiction.

The Court found no formal written agreement expressly excluding the application of Section 9; accordingly, the foreign seat and English-court clause did not, by themselves, bar recourse to an Indian court under the proviso to Section 2(2).

However, the relief sought concerned goods located at ICD Palwal.

Applying the Division Bench’s ruling in Shanghai Electric, the Court treated the location of the disputed goods as determinative of territorial jurisdiction.

The petitioner’s Delhi office, correspondence, and payments did not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court where the goods were situated in Palwal, Haryana.

The petition and pending applications were dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to approach the court of competent jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.