Madras High Court
Elboil Gmbh vs Sakthi Ferro Alloys India Pvt Ltd on 3 July, 2025
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
Arb Appln No. 768 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-07-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Arb Appln No. 768 of 2025
Elboil GmbH
Zippelhaus 3, 20457 Hamburg, Germany
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Sakthi Ferro Alloys India Pvt Ltd
18/26, Loganathan Nagar, 2nd Street, Choolaimedu,
Chennai 600 094., Represented by its Directors.
..Respondent(s)
To direct the Respondent to furnish security for the sum of INR
2,62,48,195.72/- in respect of the dues under the Awards by depositing the same
with this Honble Court or by furnishing a bank guarantee issued by any
nationalized bank having operations within the territorial jurisdiction of this
honble court or in such other manner as this Honble Court may deem fit and
proper failing which issue an order of attachment of the properties or assets
belonging to the Respondent as may be disclosed by the Respondent.
For Appellant(s): M/S.Ashwini Vaidialingam
For Respondent(s): Mr.Arun C.Mohan
__________
Page 1 of 7.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )
Arb Appln No. 768 of 2025
ORDER
This application has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent to
furnish security to the extent of the award amount of Rs.2,62,48,195.72/-,
pending enforcement of the foreign arbitral award passed in favour of the
applicant.
2. The respondent has raised various objections through their counter
affidavit filed in this application. They claim that they have never been served
with notice in the arbitral proceedings, which culminated in the passing of the
foreign arbitral award.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent also drew the attention of this
Court to the various correspondences relied upon by the applicant, which were
sent by the arbitral tribunal and the applicant, and would submit that none of
those correspondences/communications were received by the respondent.
According to the respondent, the objections raised by them through their
counter affidavit will fall within the parameters prescribed under Section 48 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(in short “the Act”), to enable the
respondent to prevent the applicant from seeking enforcement of the foreign
arbitral award under Section 49 of the Act from this Court.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )
4. Admittedly, the applicant and the respondent had entered into the
contract. The applicant is the supplier of fuel oil and the respondent is the
purchaser. According to the applicant, certain sums of money are still due and
payable by the respondent to the applicant under the contract entered into
between the parties. According to the applicant, since the respondent has failed
to pay the balance payments, they were constrained to initiate arbitration in
accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the contract. According to
the applicant, due procedure was followed by the applicant as well as the
arbitral tribunal before passing the foreign arbitral award in favour of the
applicant against the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant also drew the attention of this
Court to the foreign arbitral award passed in favour of the applicant against the
respondent and would submit that sufficient opportunities were granted to the
respondent to participate in the arbitration, but, despite the same, the respondent
had failed to participate, which culminated in the passing of the foreign arbitral
award in favour of the applicant.
6. As seen from the counter affidavit filed before this Court, the
respondent has also not disputed that they owe certain sums of money to the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )
applicant in respect of the supplies effected by the applicant on behalf of the
respondent at Malta. Therefore, this Court at this stage is of the considered
view that the applicant has made out a prima-facie case for a direction to the
respondent to furnish security to the extent of the award amount, i.e.,
Rs.2,62,48,195.72/-, within the stipulated time to be fixed by this Court.
7. The respondent has also raised an objection with regard to the
maintainability of this application on the ground that since the foreign arbitral
award has not been challenged by the respondent before the appropriate court in
Germany, this application seeking to furnish security, pending enforcement, is
not maintainable.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent also drew the attention of this
Court to a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Gopuram
Enterprises Ltd., Vs. M/s.Intergral Finance Company Ltd. (O.S.A.No.53 of
2021, dated 15.02.2021), wherein this Court has held that once an arbitral award
has attained finality, an application under Section 9 of the Act is not
maintainable. However, on perusal of the said judgment, it is seen that the said
ratio pertains to a domestic arbitral award and does not pertain to a foreign
arbitral award as in the instant case. In the instant case, the award is yet to
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )
become a decree as per the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. Only when the
foreign arbitral award becomes a decree, the applicant will be able to execute
the same for realization of the dues as per the foreign arbitral award. Therefore,
on a prima-facie consideration, this court is of the considered view that this
application is maintainable before this Court.
9. As observed earlier, this Court will have to direct the respondent to
furnish security for the awarded amount. Adequate averments have been made
in the affidavit filed in support of this application that the respondent is indebted
to various creditors and the applicant has also stated that proceedings have been
initiated against the respondent before NCLT under the Companies Act in
respect of the alleged fraud said to have been committed by the respondent.
Adequate averments have also been made by the applicant that the respondent is
attempting to alienate/encumber their assets to deprive the legitimate claim of
the various creditors including the applicant.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the respondent to furnish
security to the extent of the award amount of Rs.2,62,48,195.72/- within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the
above direction, this application is disposed off.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )
Post the matter for reporting compliance on 22.08.2025.
03-07-2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RKM
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
RKM
03-07-2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 01:36:38 pm )
