Bailiff's Appointment Does Not Bar Post-Award Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 29 October held that the appointment of a bailiff by an executing court does not preclude another court from granting post-award interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pending enforcement of the arbitral award.

A Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal filed by Facor Alloys Limited against an order appointing two Local Commissioners to inspect and prepare an inventory of goods belonging to Rajadhiraj Tirupani Vinayak Natraj Private Limited at Facor's premises. The judges said:

“As such, the fact that a bailiff may have been appointed by the Vishakhapatnam Court cannot be treated as a legal bar to the learned Single Judge having passed the impugned order in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him by Section 9.”

The dispute arose from arbitral proceedings between Facor and Rajadhiraj, which culminated in an award dated 31 July 2025.

The award recognised Rajadhiraj's right to recover its raw materials, finished products and other goods lying at Facor's plant and restrained Facor from obstructing their removal. The arbitrator also awarded Rajadhiraj Rs. 2.16 crore towards reimbursement of transformer costs, while awarding Facor approximately Rs. 18.87 crore towards conversion charges and Rs. 37.77 lakh against post-termination invoices, along with applicable interest.

Rajadhiraj subsequently sought inspection of the goods through emails dated 14 July and 13 August 2026 but allegedly received no favourable response. It then approached the Delhi High Court under Section 9(1)(ii)(c) and (e), seeking the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect and inventory the goods.

On 14 October 2026, a Single Judge allowed the application and appointed two Commissioners to inspect, photograph, verify and record the goods.

Facor challenged the order under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, arguing that execution proceedings were already pending before the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam, which had appointed a bailiff to inventory the goods.

It also relied on Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with questions arising between parties to execution proceedings concerning the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree.

Rajadhiraj, however, pointed out that the execution proceedings had commenced after it had applied for interim protection.

Rejecting Facor's contention, the Court held that preparing an inventory did not amount to determining any question concerning the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the arbitral award. It held:

“By appointing Local Commissioners to inventorize the goods present in the appellant's premises, to which the arbitral award entitles the respondent, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has 'determined' nothing at all.”

Further, the Bench clarified that the power to grant interim protection under Section 9 remains available after an arbitral award has been pronounced, provided the award has not yet been enforced.

“There is no provision curtailing the power of the Court, to issue directions under Section 9(1)(ii)(c), pending execution proceedings. Where the legislature has not chosen to engraft any such restraint, no such restraint can be introduced by judicial fiat.”

The judges also rejected Facor's apprehension that separate inventories prepared by the bailiff and the Local Commissioners could lead to contradictory findings.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed Facor's appeal at the threshold and upheld the appointment of the Local Commissioners.

Appearances for appellant (Facor Alloys Limited): Advocates Anirudh Wadhwa, Keshav Madhav Gulati, Vibhu Pahuja, Prakhar Bajpai.

Appearances for respondent (Rajadhiraj Tirupani Vinayak Natraj Private Limited): Advocates Sandeep Bajaj, Aakanksha Nehra, Sanjana Srivastava, Ishita Sharma, Mayank Biyani, Muskan Sengar.