Bombay HC Holds Section 9 Cannot Be Used to Fasten Liability on Non-Signatory Once Foreign Award Is Held Unenforceable [Read Judgment]

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a post foreign-award petition seeking interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that once a foreign arbitral award is found to be unenforceable against a party, interim reliefs cannot be granted against that party by invoking doctrines such as lifting of the corporate veil or the group of companies doctrine.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne in a petition filed by Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd., a China-based exporter of air conditioners and related products, against Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. and Vijay Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The dispute arose from a purchase order dated 23 October 2020 placed by Amstrad for the supply of air-conditioning units, which contained an arbitration clause. Ningbo claimed that Vijay Sales had issued a guarantee certificate in February 2020 assuring payment of Amstrad’s dues up to USD 10 million in the event of default. When disputes arose regarding alleged non-payment of invoices, Ningbo initiated arbitration proceedings under the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre. Although Ningbo initially attempted to implead Vijay Sales in the arbitration, it later refiled the claim solely against Amstrad after the arbitral institution declined to allow Vijay Sales to be joined, as it was not a party to the pro forma invoices.

A foreign arbitral award dated 30 November 2023 was passed directing Amstrad to pay USD 1,448,940.91 along with arbitration costs. Ningbo thereafter filed enforcement proceedings before the Bombay High Court under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, impleading both Amstrad and Vijay Sales. However, by an order dated 4 July 2025, the High Court directed deletion of Vijay Sales from the enforcement proceedings, holding that the award was not made against it and therefore could not be enforced against a non-signatory guarantor. That order was not challenged and attained finality.

Subsequently, Ningbo filed the present petition under Section 9 read with Section 2(2) of the Act seeking directions for deposit of the awarded amount, disclosure of assets, and injunctions against both Amstrad and Vijay Sales. It was argued that despite Vijay Sales not being a party to the award, interim measures could still be granted against it on the basis of its guarantee, common management with Amstrad, and the group of companies doctrine.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that Section 9 is an ancillary remedy intended to support arbitral or enforcement proceedings and cannot be used to create or resurrect substantive liability where none exists. Justice Marne observed that once the enforcement court has conclusively held that a foreign award is not enforceable against a party, it would be impermissible for a Section 9 court to record findings contrary to that conclusion in collateral proceedings.

The Court clarified that while interim measures under Section 9 may, in appropriate cases, extend to third parties, such power is confined to situations where the third party claims “through or under” the award debtor. A guarantor against whom no arbitral award exists, and who has already been deleted from enforcement proceedings, cannot be subjected to interim measures for securing the awarded amount.

The Court further held that Ningbo could not seek parallel interim reliefs by splitting its prayers between enforcement proceedings and a separate Section 9 petition. It reiterated that Section 9 cannot be used as a shortcut for execution, and that directions for deposit of awarded amounts are to be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances. Since enforcement proceedings against Amstrad were already pending and interim reliefs had been sought therein, no independent relief could be granted in the present petition.

Holding that the petition was filed immediately after Vijay Sales was deleted from the enforcement proceedings and was an attempt to indirectly rope it back into the enforcement process, the Court dismissed the petition in its entirety, with no order as to costs.

Case Details:

• Case Title: Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. and Another
• Court: Bombay High Court
• Case No.: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 983 of 2025
• Coram: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
• Pronounced On: 28 January 2026
• Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Kshama Loya, Advocate, with Ms. Sankriti Sharma, Advocate, instructed by M/s Link Legal
• Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Karl Tamboly, Advocate, with Mr. Reehan Ajmerwala, Ms. Eshika Chandan, and Mr. Siddharth Punj, Advocates

[Read Judgment]