[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Rishi Chemical Works Private Limited vs Enviro Cleanroom Projects Private ... on 15 December, 2025
ORDER OCD-5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP-COM/828/2025
RISHI CHEMICAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
ENVIRO CLEANROOM PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Date: December 15, 2025.
Appearance:-
Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Souradeep Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Moumita Dhar, Adv.
...for petitioner.
Mr. Debanik Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Steven S. Biswas, Adv.
...for respondent.
The Court:- The petitioner has preferred the present application under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking immediate
appointment of a receiver for carrying out the task specified in prayer (a) of the
petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that it is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of chemical products of diverse specifications and operates an existing
manufacturing unit at Haridwar. With a view to establishing a clean room
laboratory and an allied production facility at the said unit, the petitioner
intended to engage a contractor for execution of the said works and, in that
context, approached the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, for the aforesaid
purpose, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a price quotation and
final price agreement dated 17.07.2023, pursuant to which the respondent was
required to supply goods and render services strictly in accordance with the
terms of the accepted quotation. It was agreed that upon completion of the
work, joint measurements would be undertaken to determine the exact
quantity of goods supplied and services rendered, on the basis of which the
final amount payable would be ascertained.
It is further submitted that there has been considerable delay on the part
of the respondent in execution of the work. An aggregate amount of Rs.
1,01,76,808/- was paid by the petitioner to the respondent between
16.05.2023 and 23.10.2024 towards the setting up of the laboratory. Although
possession of the laboratory was handed over to the petitioner on 07.05.2025,
the work remained incomplete, resulting in substantial losses to the petitioner.
The petitioner accepted the handover expressly reserving its right to inspect the
facility and to communicate any deficiencies observed to the respondent.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has received a
notice from the MSME Arbitration Council and that the proceedings are
presently at the stage of conciliation, with no arbitrator having been appointed
thus far. It is contended that the present application is maintainable under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that unless a
receiver is appointed, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered
by Delhi High Court in the case of Prima Developers versus Lords Co-op.
Group Housing Society Ltd.[(FAO(OS) 164/2009)] 2009 (110) DRJ 293
(DB),wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the power under Section 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is intended to protect the
subjectmatter of arbitration and to prevent irreparable injury to a party
pending adjudication of disputes. It was further held that interim measures,
including appointment of a receiver, can be granted even prior to
commencement of arbitral proceedings, provided the Court is satisfied that the
applicant has established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience
lies in its favour, and that denial of interim protection would result in
irreparable loss.
Learned counsel for the respondent states that since the conciliation
proceedings are already pending before the MSME Council, the present
application is not maintainable. He further states that for the purposes of
collecting evidence, the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of an application
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Silpi Industries v. KSRTC(in Civil Appeals Nos.
1570-78 of 2021) along with Khyaati Engineering v. Prodigy Hydro Power
Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal nos. 1620-22 of 2021] (2021) 18 Supreme Court
Cases 790, wherein it was held that the MSME Act has an overriding effect
and that once a dispute is referred to the MSME Facilitation Council, the
procedure prescribed thereunder must be strictly followed, without recourse to
parallel remedies.
This Court has heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and has perused the materials on record.
The object and scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 permit a party to seek interim measures of protection, including
measures that facilitate preservation of the subject-matter of the dispute and
relevant material, pending arbitral proceedings. In appropriate cases, the
provision enables the Court to grant interim relief to ensure that the arbitral
process is not rendered ineffective.
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads as
follows:--
(1) A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the
making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with
section 36, apply to a court--
(i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or person of unsound
mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or
(ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the
following matters, namely:--
(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are
the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;
(b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;
(c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or
thing which is the subject matter of the dispute in arbitration, or
as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for
any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any
land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising
any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or
experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for
the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence;
(d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver;
(e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to
the Court to be just and convenient,
and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as
it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings
before it...................."
Hence in view of this, at this stage, this Court is of the prima facie of the
view that appointment of a Special Officer would be appropriate for the limited
purpose of preserving the subjectmatter of the dispute pending adjudication.
The relief sought is confined to inspection and documentation of the existing
status of the premises, the works carried out, and the materials supplied, and
cannot be construed as an attempt to collect evidence, as contended by the
respondent.
The objection raised on the basis of the decisions in Silpi Industries
(supra) and Khyaati Engineering (supra) does not, in the facts of the present
case, preclude the grant of interim relief. The said judgments primarily concern
the statutory scheme under Section 18 of the MSME Act and do not rule out
the grant of interim protective measures where such relief is necessary to
safeguard the subjectmatter of the dispute without impeding the ongoing
conciliation process.
On the other hand, the principles enunciated by the Delhi High Court in
Prima Developers (supra), support the grant of limited interim measures to
prevent prejudice and to maintain the existing state of affairs pending
resolution of disputes.
In these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the balance of
convenience lies in favour of granting the limited relief sought and that denial
thereof may result in prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, the relief sought
in prayer (a) is granted.
Ms. Mousumi Bhowal, Advocate (Mob. No. 9339697329) is, therefore,
appointed as the Special Officer to inspect the premises, take measurements of
the services stated to have been rendered by the respondent, prepare
inventories of the goods delivered and installed, as well as packed and
unpacked materials lying at the laboratory and facility, and to record
deficiencies, shortcomings and/or defects, if any, as indicated by the petitioner,
in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.
The Special Officer shall be entitled to a remuneration of Rs.75,000/-
(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only), in addition to travelling and incidental
expenses, which shall be paid in advance by the petitioner.
A representative of the petitioner shall accompany and assist the Special
Officer in the entire process.
The Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station shall render all
necessary assistance to the Special Officer.
List the matter on 27th January, 2026.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.)
R. D. Barua/Arsad
