An Indian importer locked in a dispute with a UAE supplier, an arbitration clause pointing to SIAC in Singapore, English governing law, and a consignment of aluminium scrap sitting at a dry port in Haryana — Sumridhi Aluminium Pvt Ltd v. IMR Commodities DMCC, O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 362/2026, decided by the Delhi High Court on 13 October 2026, is a compact lesson in how Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 works when the seat is abroad. Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the remedy exists in India — but filed it in the wrong court.
The commercial backdrop
The petitioner, an Indian aluminium scrap importer and recycler, contracted with the respondent, a UAE-registered commodity supplier, under three CIF contracts of February and March 2026 covering 530 MT of shredded aluminium scrap. According to the petitioner, only 140.56 MT arrived, forcing it into costlier domestic purchases; a price novation was alleged in June 2026 at USD 2,400 per MT. A further consignment of 60.04 MT shipped in June 2026 reached ICD Palwal, Haryana in August 2026 — but the respondent, it was alleged, withheld the original bills of lading pending payment and threatened to sell the cargo to a third party.
The petitioner moved the Delhi High Court under Section 9, seeking to injunct dealings with the consignment and the balance material, delivery of the shipping documents, security of Rs 2,07,12,541, asset disclosure and directions on demurrage. The arbitration clause provided for SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore, English governing law, and exclusive jurisdiction of English courts.
First question: does Section 9 apply at all?
Since the 2015 amendment, the proviso to Section 2(2) extends Section 9 (along with Sections 27 and 37(1)(a) and (3)) to international commercial arbitrations seated outside India — unless the parties agree otherwise. The Court searched the contracts for an express exclusion and found none. The Singapore seat and even the English exclusive jurisdiction clause were not read as the kind of unmistakable agreement that shuts the Indian Section 9 door. The remedy therefore existed.
Second question: which Indian court?
Here the petition foundered. The petitioner anchored Delhi jurisdiction on payments remitted from Delhi and on its registered office in Delhi. The Court held neither sufficient. Following the Division Bench in Shanghai Electric, it treated the location of the assets sought to be protected as the determinative factor for Section 9 purposes in a foreign-seated arbitration. The cargo stood at ICD Palwal, Haryana; the bank guarantee, the injunction and the documents all revolved around that cargo. As the Court put it, it was not, per se, the court of competent jurisdiction when the disputed goods were stationed in Palwal.
Payments from Delhi accounts and a Delhi registered office give the Delhi High Court jurisdiction over the Section 9 petition.
For interim protection of goods, the situs of the assets controls; the petition belongs to the court within whose limits the cargo lies.
The disposition
The petition and pending applications were dismissed, with liberty to approach the court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 2(1)(e). The dismissal decides nothing on the merits of the supply dispute, which remains for the SIAC tribunal.
Drafting and filing lessons
Before filing a Section 9 petition in aid of a foreign-seated arbitration: first, confirm the contract does not expressly exclude the proviso to Section 2(2); second, map where the assets to be protected actually are — port, warehouse, bank branch — because that, not the registered office or the place of payment, fixes the court; third, remember that time lost in the wrong forum can be fatal where cargo is perishable or at risk of third-party sale, so the territorial analysis should precede drafting, not follow dismissal.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an Indian court grant interim relief when the arbitration is seated abroad?
Yes, in most cases. The proviso to Section 2(2) of the 1996 Act, inserted in 2015, extends Section 9 to international commercial arbitrations seated outside India unless the parties have agreed to exclude it. The Delhi High Court found no express exclusion in the contracts, so the SIAC Singapore seat and the English exclusive jurisdiction clause did not bar the petition.
Which Indian court should such a petition be filed in?
The court within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the relief lies. Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Shanghai Electric, the Court held that for Section 9 purposes the location of the assets sought to be protected is determinative. Payments made from Delhi and the petitioner’s Delhi registered office did not confer jurisdiction when the goods lay at ICD Palwal, Haryana.
What relief had the petitioner sought?
Injunctions over a 60.04 MT consignment and the balance contracted material, delivery of the original bills of lading, a bank guarantee of Rs 2,07,12,541, disclosure of assets and directions on demurrage — all in aid of a SIAC arbitration over short deliveries under three CIF contracts for 530 MT of shredded aluminium scrap.
Was the petitioner left without a remedy?
No. The petition was dismissed only on territorial grounds, with express liberty to approach the court of competent jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) — in practical terms, the court within whose limits the cargo at Palwal lies.